There are two big Trump earthquakes about to take place. These are not the biggest Trump earthquakes that will rattle the world and this country. Those mega-MAGA-Trumpquakes we will write about at a later day. Today we discuss the biggest Trump earthquakes that are about to shake America.

These two imminent Trump earthquakes we confess have taken us by surprise. Indeed, we mocked the possibility of them ever happening under Trump or anyone else. Yet, here we are. They are about to happen.

We mean tax reform. We are not talking about the “tax reform” everyone else is talking about. We mean the revolutionary aspects about to be unleashed by the Trump tax reform plan.

* * * * * *

As President Trump said in Missouri today, few if any presidents have accomplished as much as President Trump has in the ten months (only ten months????) since inauguration.

It’s not only the massive economic growth (3.3 percent in the third quarter despite the hurricanes), the confidence of consumers as we approach the biggest Christmas season in decades, and the cultural impact President Trump has already had on America. Now the big ones are about to hit. Hardest hit by the Trump earthquakes? California. Then New York. Then Illinois and New Jersey. Blue states all.

We have not thought any of this would happen. We did not think tax reform would happen. We thought (and still think) John McCain and other NeverTrump GOP establishment Republicans will do everything and anything to stop President Trump. Still, it might happen. But happen or not, the earthquake will now shake your windows and rattle your halls, at some point. It will happen because now we see that it can happen.

What are these Trump earthquakes? It’s SALT and the education wound.

EARTHQUAKE 1 SALT

While most everyone focuses on how the Trump tax plan will affect them personally we’re looking at the policy and the political implications of that policy. The leftists in the “blue states” started a civil war and now President Trump is bringing in the Grand Army of the Republic.

“SALT” in this instance stands for “state and local taxes”. Most Americans will not be affected adversely by the proposed elimination of state and local tax deduction write-offs on federal taxes because President Trump also proposes a doubling of the standard deduction. But some Americans will be hit hard by the elimination of SALT deductions on federal income taxes.

Who will be hurt by the elimination of SALT deductions in federal taxes? Those with high incomes in high tax states will be hurt because the standard deduction increases will not make up for the loss of SALT deductions in federal taxes. But who will really, really, really, really be hurt the most? Blue state Obama Dimocrat politicians:

Trump’s Tax Plan Could Be Painful for New York, New Jersey, and California

Wealthier residents of high-tax states would be especially hard hit if they can no longer deduct state and local taxes from their federal taxes.

Take a moment to fully grasp the revolutionary implications of what this means. It means that Obama Dimocrats that control these blue states will be put under pressure by their powerful residents to reduce state and local taxes. The very wealthy that have supported the Obama Dimocrats will be the hardest hit and the ones who will either have to move from the blue states or else demand that state and local taxes be lowered. It’s revolutionary:

“There is no doubt that if you are a New York or California resident, your largest deduction, by a factor that could be as high as 10, is the state and local income tax,” said tax expert Robert Willens, of New York-based Robert Willens LLC. “Historically a high-state tax was mitigated by the fact that you were able to deduct it, so it was really costing you 60 percent or 65 percent of what you were paying to the state.” [snip]

The deduction ends up being far more valuable in states with the highest tax burdens.

Nationwide, wealthier taxpayers benefit the most from the deduction. More than 88 percent of its benefits go to Americans who earn more than $100,000 a year, according to the Tax Foundation.

Past efforts to end the deduction of state and local taxes, back in the Reagan years, never took hold, because the hardest-hit states complained so bitterly about it, said Willens. In the recent presidential election, Trump won none of the 10 states where residents benefit the most from the state and local tax deduction. The highest-tax state the president did take is Wisconsin, where 32 percent of taxpayers claim the deduction, which represents 6 percent of their adjusted gross incomes. He won all 10 states that benefit the least from the deduction, with the exception of Nevada. Alaskans benefit the least of all: 22 percent of filers in Alaska claim the deduction, but it represents just 1.5 percent of their incomes, according to Internal Revenue Service data.

If the change goes through, there’s little that people can do except maybe decamp for Florida or Texas, where there is no state income tax. Not that tax collectors in high-tax states like New York make it easy to move.

Whether it happens now or not, it is clear that it will happen because President Trump has made it a very real possibility. We never thought President Trump could accomplish this.

The very wealthy that have provided financing for Obama Dimocrats will have to (a) lose money, or (b) demand that Obama Dimocrats they donate to cut state and local taxes, or (c) move to red states. Get a dog to eat a dog:

New York Could Lose Some Top Earners Under GOP Tax Bill, Goldman Says

New York City could lose some of its highest-income residents if the tax bill making its way through the U.S. Congress becomes law, according to estimates from Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

Initial analysis suggests that the legislation “could eventually lower the number of top-income earners in New York City” by 2 percent to 4 percent, Goldman economists led by Jan Hatzius wrote in a note dated Nov. 24. The trigger would be a provision that restricts the ability of taxpayers to deduct the levies they pay to state and local authorities, which would disproportionately hit locations with relatively high rates. [snip]

“We now expect a repeal of the federal deductibility of state and local income taxes as well as a $10,000 cap on the property-tax deduction,” Goldman economists wrote as the Senate prepares to vote for its version of the tax overhaul. “The increased tax gap between high- and low-tax areas may moderately increase moves to the latter.” [snip]

California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Maryland would see a drop in the value of income- and property-tax deductions of almost 15 percent of their total state and local taxes, Goldman says.

“These changes could create additional fiscal challenges for the high-tax areas, some of which already face structural pension funding issues,” the economists said.

The high tax Obama Dimocrat blue states have for years raised local and state taxes without facing protests from blue state citizens. That’s because the ability to deduct these high state and local taxes on federal income tax forms made the increases in local and state taxes relatively painless. After all, other Americans paid for the high taxes in high tax states, so it was all gain no pain. Now, because of President Trump reality must be faced. Now the high tax Obama Dimocrat blue state will get pain but no gain.

If citizens of high tax Obama Dimocrat blue states want tax relief they will have to confront and remove the tax and spend Obama Dimocrats. Or move to red states.

Throw in the ObamaCare individual mandate repeal which might be included in the final tax plan and the Obama Dimocrat run blue states will be hit even harder. And if the Graham/Cassidy ObamaCare repeal plan comes to pass blue states will have to either stop providing ObamaCare to everyone and anyone (including illegal immigrants either through phony documentation or other means) or cut benefits to American citizens — or have to pay for it from tax dollars extracted from the blue state citizens. But that is a discussion for another day.

House GOP to Propose Sweeping Changes to Higher Education
Revamp would put caps on student loans, foster new paths to work force

The Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives this week will propose sweeping legislation that aims to change where Americans go to college, how they pay for it, what they study, and how their success—or failure—affects the institutions they attend.

That is all in the future when powerful academic institutions will have to behave responsibly and produce results for the students they currently extract money from. But not all the reforms are in the distant future. Some of the changes are shovel ready. The Academy is about to be buried in a Trump earthquake:

GOP tax plan rattles higher education

The proposal reflects a growing sense of colleges, universities as bastions of privilege.

Congressional Republicans’ plans to slap unprecedented new taxes on higher education have left college leaders shocked and scrambling — the latest salvo in what some observers say is a growing culture war on a higher education system seen as elitist and out of touch.

While most college leaders said they don’t believe they were targeted directly in tax reform legislation — and are rather collateral damage — they say the hit was startling, as higher education has long enjoyed bipartisan support. Higher education also is a powerful lobbying force on the Hill.

In interviews with POLITICO, college presidents contended the tax proposals (H.R. 1 (115)) would be a devastating blow that would make college — especially graduate school — more expensive, and further out of reach of low- and middle-income families. That argument, however, may not go far, as polling shows many Americans are increasingly wary of colleges and universities, and are generally supportive of tax cuts.

“Very few Americans care” about the plight of colleges and especially about the problems of graduate students, said Jason Delisle at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “Very few of them are privileged enough to get a graduate degree from an elite institution. I think they’re like, ‘Complain all you want.’ It’s just not going to resonate with Main Street America.”

Indeed, recent data shows the nation’s most elite schools have long catered mostly to the wealthy, serving relatively few low- and middle-income Americans. Dozens of colleges enroll more students from the top 1 percent of earners than the bottom 60 percent, according to data from the Equality of Opportunity Project.

The powerful masters of colleges and universities will focus all their power to stop these responsible changes. The colleges and universities will try to make the argument that students will be hurt by the tax changes although the rise of the standard deduction would offset any higher taxes individual students will pay. What the colleges and universities fear is the loss of their massive endowment funds:

A recent poll from Pew found 58 percent of Republicans view colleges negatively, while 72 percent of Democrats view them positively.

The tax bills, experts say, may well be part of that sentiment. Both the House and Senate levy new taxes on the largest private college endowments. The House would end deductions for student loan interest and tax tuition waivers for graduate students.

“I think it’s part of a culture war … no question,” said Philip Altbach, a research professor and founding director of the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College. [snip]

College leaders fear the tax plan is the latest sign they are losing the battle over public perception. The proposal comes after years of rising tuition prices have led many Americans to believe college is too expensive. It also follows a year of intense scrutiny over cultural issues on campuses, including conflicts over free speech that have crystallized the view among some Republicans that colleges are pushing a liberal agenda.

“We’re being challenged on all of these fronts, and we see that reflected for example in the tax legislation,” Rice University President David Leebron said. [snip]

But perhaps the most in-your-face item aimed at higher education — especially elite colleges and universities — is a plan in both the House and Senate versions that would tax private university endowment earnings. The tax would only apply to private universities with at least 500 students and endowment assets of at least $250,000 per student — between 60 and 70 schools.

Harvard University alone has an endowment of well over 34 billion dollars, Princeton over 22 billion dollars, Stanford 22 billion dollars, Yale has over 25 billion dollars. Poor darlings want everyone to pay taxes, now they can join in the fun.

120 thoughts on “Two Trump Earthquakes To Come”

The last 96 hours from President Trump, who is escalating his war with the press:

Called for CNN boycott and attacked CNN International’s reporting. (His Justice Department is suing to stop CNN parent company Time Warner from merging with AT&T.)

Said NBC and Comcast executives should be fired for fake news and called for investigation into NBC News chairman Andy Lack after firing of NBC anchor Matt Lauer.

“So now that Matt Lauer is gone when will the Fake News practitioners at NBC be terminating the contract of Phil Griffin? And will they terminate low ratings Joe Scarborough based on the “unsolved mystery” that took place in Florida years ago? Investigate!”

Tweeted about a “FAKE NEWS TROPHY” for the TV networks and cable news (not including Fox).

As the co-host of NBC’s “Today,” Matt Lauer once gave a colleague a sex toy as a present. It included an explicit note about how he wanted to use it on her, which left her mortified.

On another day, he summoned a different female employee to his office, and then dropped his pants, showing her his penis. After the employee declined to do anything, visibly shaken, he reprimanded her for not engaging in a sexual act.

He would sometimes quiz female producers about who they’d slept with, offering to trade names. And he loved to engage in a crass quiz game with men and women in the office: “f—, marry, or kill,” in which he would identify the female co-hosts that he’d most like to sleep with.

These accounts of Lauer’s behavior at NBC are the result of a two-month investigation by Variety, with dozens of interviews with current and former staffers. Variety has talked to three women who identified themselves as victims of sexual harassment by Lauer, and their stories have been corroborated by friends or colleagues that they told at the time. They have asked for now to remain unnamed, fearing professional repercussions.

On Wednesday, NBC announced that Lauer was fired from “Today.” It was a stunning move for a co-host who was widely considered the crown jewel of the network’s news division, with a $25 million annual salary. The cause of his dismissal, according to sources, was a detailed complaint from another current NBC employee about inappropriate sexual conduct from Lauer that started on a trip at the Sochi Olympics in 2014 and continued for several months.

The employee met with human resources at NBC on Monday night. In a statement, NBC News Chairman Andy Lack called this the first complaint about his behavior in over 20 years and acknowledged that it may not be the last: “We were also presented with reason to believe that this may not have been an isolated incident,” Lack said.

Several women told Variety they complained to executives at the network about Lauer’s behavior, which fell on deaf ears given the lucrative advertising surrounding “Today.” NBC declined to comment. For most of Lauer’s tenure at “Today,” the morning news show was No. 1 in the ratings, and executives were eager to keep him happy.

It’s not clear if NBC is paying Lauer through the end of his contract, which expires in 2018. Lauer couldn’t be reached for comment.

Insiders say that NBC was forced to act quickly after this week’s complaint, given the severity of the accusations and the national dialogue around sexual harassment that has ended the careers of Harvey Weinstein, Charlie Rose, Kevin Spacey, Louis C.K. and other prominent men. Now, against a series of questions about the future of “Today,” a troubling portrait has emerged of Lauer. In front of the camera, for more than two decades, Lauer had positioned himself as America’s squeaky-clean dad. But behind the scenes, Lauer was a different person.

Despite being married, Lauer was fixated on women, especially their bodies and looks, according to more than 10 accounts from current and former employees. He was known for making lewd comments verbally or over text messages. He once made a suggestive reference to a colleague’s performance in bed and compared it to how she was able to complete her job, according to witnesses to the exchange. For Lauer, work and sex were intertwined.

“There were a lot of consensual relationships, but that’s still a problem because of the power he held,” says a former producer who knew first-hand of these encounters. “He couldn’t sleep around town with celebrities or on the road with random people, because he’s Matt Lauer and he’s married. So he’d have to do it within his stable, where he exerted power, and he knew people wouldn’t ever complain.”

Lauer, who was paranoid about being followed by tabloid reporters, grew more emboldened at 30 Rockefeller Center as his profile rose following Katie Couric’s departure from “Today” in 2006. His office was in a secluded space, and he had a button under his desk that allowed him to lock his door from the inside without getting up. This afforded him the assurance of privacy. It allowed him to welcome female employees and initiate inappropriate contact while knowing nobody could walk in on him, according to two women who were sexually harassed by Lauer.

According to sources, the sexual harassment extended to when Lauer traveled on assignment for NBC. Several employees recall how he paid intense attention to a young woman on his staff that he found attractive, focusing intently on her career ambitions. And he asked the same producer to his hotel room to deliver him a pillow, according to sources with knowledge of the interaction.

This was part of a pattern. According to multiple accounts, independently corroborated by Variety, Lauer would invite women employed by NBC late at night to his hotel room while covering the Olympics in various cities over the years. He later told colleagues how his wife had accompanied him to the London Olympics because she didn’t trust him to travel alone.

The spotlight on Lauer intensified earlier this month, when his longtime booker Matt Zimmerman was fired over sexual harassment complaints. The two were very close, and Lauer had promoted Zimmerman to a high executive position and offered him a powerful perch.

Lauer’s conduct was not a secret among other employees at “Today,” numerous sources say. At least one of the anchors would gossip about stories she had heard, spreading them among the staff. “Management sucks there,” says a former reporter, who asked not to be identified, speaking about executives who previously worked at the show. “They protected the s— out of Matt Lauer.”

Some producers told Variety they were conflicted about what to do around Lauer. They worried that their careers would be sidelined if they didn’t return his advances. “There is such shame with Matt Lauer not liking you,” the former employee added. “I did this special with him and we are traveling and I had a cold sore on my lip and I heard him say to Bryant Gumbel, ‘She has this really ugly cold sore on her lip,’ like that was something to be ashamed of. He was just really cruel.”

According to producers, Lauer — who had considerable editorial clout over which stories would ultimately air on “Today” — would frequently dismiss stories about cheating husbands. However, in the wake of Roger Ailes and Harvey Weinstein, Lauer had to keep up with a national conversation about sexual harassment. It often made for awkward moments on TV for staff members who knew about Lauer’s private interactions.

In September, Lauer asked Fox News star anchor Bill O’Reilly if he’d ever sent lewd text messages to colleagues. “Think about those … women and what they did,” Lauer said. “They came forward and filed complaints against the biggest star at the network they worked at. Think about how intimidating that must have been. Doesn’t that tell you how strongly they felt about you?”

California, New York, Illinois will be hardest hit and those are blue states.

Take California for example. Brown wants to make it a sanctuary state. They spend money like a drunken sailor. And the look to states like Idaho to subsidize their largesse. If they can no longer deduct their state taxes, then they will have reason to either strangle their local dim politicians to death, or move to another state. Seems like the right incentives.

We need to empower women, so say the Harvey Weinsteins, Charlie Roses (CBS), Matt Lauers (NBC), and Mark Halperins (ABC), and Darkling Flushes (NYT /Politico) and the rest of the best and brightest of our culture.

This is not just about victims, is it? It is also about a Faustian Pact, where sex is traded for money in the form of career. This is not a defense for the predators. Let the burn in hell as far as I am concerned. But let us not assume a victorian attitude where all men are evil and these women are wall flowers shackled to the railroad track by Snydely Whiplash aka David Axelrod.

It is more nuanced than that.

And if these so called feminists who blather on about harrassment, but look the other way if the male predator involved is “on the side of women”, and look for ways to promote gender sensitivity, and now, as college bureaucrats, make college so irrelevant and unaffordable, that no self respecting male wants to go through that bullshit, this must be said.

Empowerment begins at home, and knowing when to say no. There is a name for selling your body for cash, whether you call it careerism or its more traditional name, it is what it is.
———
When you’re in a field where you have to pass the scrutiny of a tiny, select number of gatekeepers – when you know that the number of slots available for artistic work to even reach the public is much smaller than the number of people jostling for a slot — you’re going to do whatever it takes to get one of those slots. Sure. I get that.

If those who haven’t sinned can cast the first stone, my hands are empty, even if I didn’t succumb to the same form of extortion.

On the other hand—

On the other hand, the extortion in my field, the sidelining of politically suspect people, happened because those few of us who were good enough to fake it as we got in stayed quiet. Even now, probably 50 percent of my colleagues are well to the right of Lenin and keeping quiet because they want a career. A traditional career. And I can hold my fingers aloft because I’m Baen-and-Indie. (Yes, there will be more indie, be patient.)

And the sexual extortion in Hollywood, in news, in various kinds of showbiz happened because women gave in to it, cowered to it, and even protected the offenders. Because they wanted a career.

So… we’ve established what they are, they just don’t like the price they paid, and are trying to revoke the deal retroactively.

Let’s make no mistake here: yeah, sure, the abusers were enabled by the media. They were enabled by an establishment that protected men acting like moronic glands on legs if they spouted the right opinions. They were protected by money, power, and prestige.

And the women gave in to them because they had power, money, prestige. Because the women wanted a career, advancement. Money.

Some of us grew up in another time and place. We were taught the way women respond to unwanted advances, much less to advances that amount to professional extortion. There is the “freeze face” — the look that puts a man at a remote distance, where they’re ants, and you’re a goddess. And there is the “How dare you?”

For men who persist or who start out with groping, where I come from in another time and place, there was the slap, or for the really slow of learning ones, the punch.

There are very few men who continue being amorous when you punch them in the face. (And there are self-defense classes to handle those.)

Every woman who didn’t react to these untoward, unacceptable advances in one of these ways fed the system that abused other women. Most of these men were actually convinced they were irresistible and the women were willing. Why would they not be? That was their experience.

And this is not acceptable.

If women are going to be adult human beings, in the workplace we need to stand on two legs and demand to be treated like adult human beings. We need to, yes, refuse tainted advancement based on putting out. We need to behave as professionals.

Sure that will burn careers for some. Let me tell you there is life after burning your career or – ask Roger Simon – after blacklisting yourself.

The dream of equality in the workplace depends on women stopping these abuses themselves when they happen.

No one can victimize you unless you allow it. And allowing yourself to be victimized for power and money is not victimization, it’s greed and ambition.

The continuous denunciation carnival grows tiresome, much as we on the right are watching your cannibal feast with growing fascination.

The end result of it is to run men from public life as though women had no part in this system. And the abuses will go on, because women abuse power too, just not usually in a sexual way.

Take a good look in the mirror, ladies and gentlemen. If you were true ladies and gentlemen you’d know there’s a system of mutual obligation. Checks and balances, you could call them.

Women can’t abdicate their responsibility and not expect men to take advantage.

We’re racing to a system where women act like poor little flowers who have to be protected and kept safe.

It’s not a system I want for myself or for my granddaughters. It’s not a system I want for anyone.

You wanted into the workplace, you have it. Now hold the line. Refuse to sell your body for a career.

All these victims coming out and crying about long-past sins? These monsters you’re now denouncing? Ladies, you created them.

You can choose to stop this now and turn it around. Or you can go shambling further into insanity and restriction of women’s options.

John McCain issued a statement that he will vote for the tax plan. This means the tax plan will likely pass the senate and then go to the conference committee. After that the conference committee produces the new bill for the House and Senate to vote on for final passage. That’s when we expect McCain will perform a stab in the back.

If this latest McCain statement means that he will vote for the final bill produced by the conference committee then the tax plan will come to fruition. This will insure the big GOP victories we have predicted for next year. We still believe the GOP will win big next year whether the congress produces anything or not. But a tax plan that benefits states that voted for President Trump will be extra added insurance for the Trump GOP victories in 2018.

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), who is embroiled in a sexual misconduct scandal, was hospitalized in his home state due to stress, according to two localreports on Thursday.

“I just spoke with Monica Conyers on the phone and we want you to know that the congressman is resting comfortably in an area hospital. He’s doing OK, as well as he can be expected for a gentleman that’s approaching 90 years of age,” Sam Riddle, a Conyers consultant, told WDIV TV.

“The congressman’s health is not what it should be and lot of that is directly attributable to this media assault.”

New York Times says Tillerson is about to go. Tillerson has been doing a great job lately especially in draining the swamp at Foggy Bottom State Department headquarters. Tillerson’s replacement will do a very great job:

White House Envisions Tillerson Ouster From State Dept., to Be Replaced by Pompeo, Within Weeks

WASHINGTON — The White House has developed a plan to force out Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson, whose relationship with President Trump has been strained, and replace him with Mike Pompeo, the C.I.A. director, within the next several weeks, senior administration officials said on Thursday.

Mr. Pompeo would be replaced at the C.I.A. by Senator Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas who has been a key ally of the president on national security matters, according to the White House plan. Mr. Cotton has signaled that he would accept the job if offered, said the officials, who insisted on anonymity to discuss sensitive deliberations before decisions are announced.

It was not immediately clear whether Mr. Trump has given final approval to the plan, but he has been said to have soured on Mr. Tillerson and in general is ready to make a change at the State Department.

John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff, developed the transition plan and has discussed it with other officials. Under his plan, the shake-up of the national security team would happen around the end of the year or shortly afterward.

The ouster of Mr. Tillerson would end a turbulent reign at the State Department for the former Exxon Mobile chief executive, who has been largely marginalized over the last year. Mr. Trump and Mr. Tillerson have been at odds over a host of major issues, including the Iran nuclear deal, the confrontation with North Korea and a clash between Arab allies.

Tom Cotton will do a great job at CIA and will drain the swamp there. But we would like Cotton to remain in the Senate because he is a strong voice on illegal immigration.

The Tom Cotton move to CIA means another senate seat up for election in 2018. The GOP replacement senator will easily win election.

An Army veteran says Sen. Al Franken groped her in December 2003, telling CNN that while she was deployed in Kuwait, the Minnesota Democrat cupped her breast during a photo op.

Stephanie Kemplin, 41, of Maineville, Ohio, is the fifth woman in two weeks to accuse Franken of inappropriate touching, and the second person to allege that such behavior took place while Franken was on a USO tour. Three of the five women have been identified by name.

Kemplin said while she was stationed in the Middle East during the Iraq War, she met Franken — at the time, a comedian and writer — as he was visiting American troops with the USO. A longtime fan of “Saturday Night Live,” Kemplin got in line to take a photo with Franken.

“When he put his arm around me, he groped my right breast. He kept his hand all the way over on my breast,” Kemplin said in an interview. “I’ve never had a man put their arm around me and then cup my breast. So he was holding my breast on the side.”

Kemplin repeatedly used the word “embarrassed” to describe her immediate reaction at the time.

“I remember clenching up and how you just feel yourself flushed,” she said. “And I remember thinking — is he going to move his hand? Was it an accident? Was he going to move his hand? He never moved his hand.” [snip]

In one of multiple lengthy phone calls with a CNN reporter this week, Kemplin repeatedly broke into sobs.

“I was in a war zone… You were on a USO tour — are you trying to boost the morale of the troops or are you trying to boost your own?” she said. “I just feel so sorry for that young girl in that picture.”

We don’t have a state income tax in Florida . My real state taxes are about 13k and it’s a nice deduction but I can do without it for the greater good. We must stop North Korea and Iram a sap as we are now very close to a nuclear event imho . I guess the deduction won’t matter then 😜😜🤑

In case anyone has missed it: Stock market broke through the 24,000 mark when it opened today. Currently the DOW is up more than 350 points. The race towards 25,000 is on as the DOW is at 24,291. Trump election night the market was close to 18,000.

That didn’t take long. An overnight panic in global markets evaporated as Wall Street gave an emphatic welcome to President-elect Donald Trump.

The Dow soared 257 points and brushed up against lifetime highs on Wednesday, in defiance of those who predicted Trump’s election would bring about a plunge in the stock market. The S&P 500 and the Nasdaq rose 1.1% apiece.

The impressive market performance represents a dramatic reversal from the knee-jerk panic in global markets overnight as the results were coming in. Dow futures plummeted nearly 900 points at one point as investors expressed fear that no one would emerge victorious and concern about the inherent uncertainties brought on by a Trump White House.

But a sense of relative calm returned to the markets by morning. The rally gathered momentum midday after Hillary Clinton, Wall Street’s favored candidate, officially conceded.

New England Elected Official Says Al Franken Tried to Give Her A ‘Wet, Open-Mouthed Kiss’ Onstage

A former elected official in New England who has requested anonymity tells Jezebel that Al Franken attempted to give her a “wet, open-mouthed kiss” onstage at an event in 2006, shortly before he ran for Senate. The woman says the encounter left her “stunned and incredulous.” [snip]

The New England woman told Jezebel she came forward in an effort to encourage Franken to take responsbility for his actions, but didn’t wish to be named.

“I want my name associated with my own accomplishments,” she told us, “and not publicly linked to a man’s bad behavior.”

According to the woman’s account, she was working as the chair of her town’s Selectboard in 2006 when Franken, who was then a host for the progressive radio station Air America, came to her community. The woman was invited to appear as a guest in a live taping of his show and be interviewed in a theater in front of a large audience. Jezebel has independently confirmed that she appeared on the show.

After the interview, the woman tells us, “I reached out my hand to shake his.” Then, she says, “He took it and leaned toward me with his mouth open. I turned my head away from him and he landed a wet, open-mouthed kiss awkwardly on my cheek.”

The woman says she was in disbelief. “I was stunned and incredulous. I felt demeaned. I felt put in my place.” She says, too, that although they were in an extremely public place, no one noticed: “It was onstage in front of a full theater… It was insidious. It was in plain sight and yet nobody saw it.” She adds, referring to the women who say Franken groped them during photo ops: “The other women’s accounts of him grabbing their buttocks in front of their mothers and husbands, I believe them.”

The incident happened in the spring of 2006; Franken announced he was running for Senate in February 2007.

Advertisement

The woman’s sister confirmed to Jezebel that she told her about the incident right away. The official’s sister, who described her own politics as liberal, said “Honestly, it tainted my view of him.”

A friend of the woman told us that she, too, was told about the incident shortly after it took place. She again remembered the elected official had told her about it after seeing Leann Tweeden’s story, she says. “I said, wait a minute, this rings a bell.” She also describes her politics as liberal: “We don’t have an agenda to bring this guy down and we didn’t at the time.”

JbStonesFan, the amount of money you’re raking in from the rise of the stock market doesn’t have anything to do with your “greater good” largesse does it? 🙂

As to North Korea, it is in this area we have the most trust in President Trump. PDT will “handle” lil Rocket Man. Then Iran. As has been written here previously, North Korea is the toughest nut to crack because it is always difficult for a superpower to deal with countries that are so poor they have little to lose. Iran will be much easier to deal with even though most “experts” think the opposite is true.

Lol😀. It’s been a great year if your an investor and my broker thinks more gains at least through 2nd qt 2018. Bond market simply too low so equities may still go higher.
Yes, N. Korea has 0 to lose so it is more dangerous at the moment than Iran. Bottom line is Obama, Bush and yes, my beloved Bill, really left us in a mess as far as those two countries are concerned .

remember when all of the media, especially CNN, NBC & MSNBC was going on and on and on about sexual harrassment at Fox news…as if it only went on at Fox…

i remember coming here and saying something like ‘are they kidding?’ do they expect us to believe this isn’t going on in Hollywood, LA & NYC, at CNN, MSNBC, etc…and now our perverted Congress & Senate…while we pay for hiding their dirty secrets…

and look at where we are now…amazing & most of them on the list are democrats/liberals…think about it… Charlie Rose…out
Lauer…out
Conyers…on his way out
Franken…getting hot for him
David Corn at MJ
Mark Halpeirn…out
the list goes on…

and btw…”no one ever knew or suspected a thing about any of them” hear no evil, see no evil…

the list just grows and heavens knows who is next in the Congress with over $15 million paid out in hush money (and funny how all the politicians are now saying they never even knew about it…except for Chris Shays who was on CNN and tried to explain it…it Shays knows…many of them know…they put it together with very “specific” procedures…

…and in the media…

my best bet is on someone at CNN will be singled out…Jake Tapper’s producer just got fired…and Tapper didn’t know a thing about him as a harasser…wouldn’t that be a kick if santimonious Tapper was outed…
that Stelter at CNN is a weirdo ?

and what about MSNBC

How is Joe S surviving this so far…so many stories about him…now he is resorting to slamming PDT as having dementia and spreading rumors that he has heard from Congressmen that PDT has dementia & is out of it…

The screenwriter of ‘Rachel Getting Married’ and ‘The Mummy’ (and the daughter of filmmaker Sidney Lumet) details a terrifying encounter with the legendary music producer, who says he is stepping down from his businesses in the wake of the new claims.

Russell Simmons, a prolific music and TV producer and co-founder of Def Jam Recordings, was accused of sexual assault and harassment by model Keri Claussen Khalighi in a Nov. 19 article in the Los Angeles Times. Simmons then denied the incident in a letter published Nov. 22 by The Hollywood Reporter. The letter prompted Jenny Lumet — an award-winning screenwriter (Rachel Getting Married, The Mummy), the daughter of filmmaker Sidney Lumet, and granddaughter of singer/activist Lena Horne — to pen a response detailing her own experience with Simmons.

On Nov. 22, 2017, Russell Simmons wrote:

“I have never committed any acts of aggression or violence in my life. I would never knowingly cause fear or harm to anyone.”

Dear Russell:

I met you around 1987, through Rick Rubin, who has always been kind to me. Rick knew my sister through NYU and asked me, at the upstairs bar in a nightclub called the Palladium, to be in a movie you were producing that Rick was directing, starring RUN DMC. It was, frankly, a lousy movie, and I was terrible in it.

Over the next three or four years, I would see you out and about, at a nightclub called Nell’s mostly. I don’t recall you and I ever just going out to dinner, or having a one-to-one experience; we were always in groups, and we had many, many mutual friends. You were charming and funny and charismatic and self-deprecating. Not being in the music business made it possible for me to relax around you. And you were a fan of my grandmother, respected her, and told me so. You seemed sincere.

You pursued me, lightly, on and off, over a course of years, saying you had a thing for a “little yellow girl” (me). I rebuffed. It wasn’t deep, as far as I knew. It was never a big deal. You had, I assumed, many women in your orbit.

Once you sent me 250 balloons with the note “Please baby, please baby, baby, baby, baby” after a character in a Spike Lee movie. It was light, fun, and flattering. We continued to socialize in the same places. We continued to have a large group of mutual friends.

One night circa 1991, when I was around 24, I was at a restaurant called Indochine. I had worked there when I was 17, as the coat check girl, and I enjoyed returning. I still knew some of the staff at this point and felt quite comfortable there. I remember I was wearing one of the Azzedine Alaia tops that were everywhere that year. And hoop earrings. I think it was cool enough for a jacket. Because I remember being glad I had a jacket by the end of that night.

You had a car and a driver that evening. Sometime later, you offered me a ride to my home. I said, “Sure.” During the making of the RUN DMC movie, I had been in vans with you and other crew members. I don’t recall having accepted a ride home alone with you before that night.

At no time that night did I say: “Russell, I will go home with you.” Or “Come home with me.” Or “I will have sex with you.” Or “I have the desire to have sex with you.”

I believe it was an SUV, because I recall having to step up into the car. I don’t know about makes or models. I think the driver was already in the car.

I got into the car with you. The driver began to drive. I assumed you knew where I lived, because you had sent me 250 balloons, but I gave the driver my address on 19th Street and 2nd Avenue.

You said to the driver: “No.”

I didn’t understand, so I said: “Russell?”

I said, again, to the driver: “19th Street.”

Again you said to the driver: “No.”

Then the car doors locked. It was loud. The noise made me jump.

I didn’t recognize you at that moment. It was disorienting. It was disorienting. I say it twice now because you said “No” twice then.

I couldn’t open the doors. I couldn’t open the windows. The car was moving. The driver did not stop. He did not take me to 19th Street. He took me to your apartment.

I didn’t try to kick the windows out. I didn’t punch or kick. I didn’t say, “What are you doing?” My voice left me after the second “No.”

I felt dread and disorientation. I wanted to go home. I said I wanted to go home. I didn’t recognize the man next to me. I didn’t know if the situation would turn violent. I remember thinking that I must be crazy. I remember hoping that the Russell I knew would return any moment.

The car stopped at the curb. I don’t recall the street. I recall the driver opening the door from the outside, and you behind me. I was between the two of you. Not wedged, just in the space between you. I remember exchanging a look with the driver. He was unreadable. It was chilly out. It was me and these two men.

I felt dread. I was tremulous. Off my feet. I felt an intense need to keep both of you calm. Was there a time or a space to run? I have no idea. Would somebody else have run? I have no idea. There were two men. One of whom obeyed the other. It was an overwhelming feeling.

There was no well-lit lobby or doorman at the entrance we used. I would guess it was not the main entrance to the building. I believe there was a door from street level that opened into a space beneath the residential area of the building, in which there was a small back elevator. If I am wrong about the layout, then I am wrong. There were two men, and I was afraid.

You didn’t punch me, drag me or verbally threaten me. You used your size to maneuver me, quickly, into the elevator. I said, “Wait. Wait.” I felt dread. I was very, very sad. I didn’t know if the driver was a further threat, or an ally. I was both relieved and terrified when he did not get into the elevator. Alone in the elevator, you pressed me into the corner with your body, your hands and your mouth.

The elevator did not stop on the way up to your apartment. I was moved very quickly inside. I recall hearing the apartment door closing behind us.

I saw no one else. I recall you were behind me. I was still hoping the Russell I knew would reappear, as I could not recognize the man moving me deeper into the apartment — the man who had said “No” to his driver. Twice.

You moved me into a bedroom. I said, “Wait.” You said nothing.

I made the trade in my mind. I thought, “Just keep him calm, and you’ll get home.” Maybe another person would have thought differently, or not made the trade.

It was dark but not pitch-dark. You closed the door.

At that point, I simply did what I was told.

There was penetration. At one point you were only semi-erect and appeared frustrated. Angry? I remember being afraid that you would deem that my fault and become violent. I did not know if you were angry, but I was afraid that you were.

I desperately wanted to keep the situation from escalating. I wanted you to feel that I was not going to be difficult. I wanted to stay as contained as I could.

You told me to turn over on my stomach. You said something about a part of my body. You did not ejaculate inside me.

When it was over, I got my clothes and quickly went down in the elevator by myself. You didn’t try to stop me. I went home in a taxi. I was grateful to be secure in my home. I never told anyone this story until October 27 of this year (after the Harvey Weinstein story was in the news but weeks before the first public claims were made against you), when I told a girlfriend from childhood.

“Abusing women in any way, shape or form violates the very core of my being.” — Russell Simmons

We encountered each other socially many times after that night. We had a score of mutual friends. We may have been photographed proximately, or together. The dynamic between us was different, muted. I never sought you out, nor did I run from a place or event upon seeing you. I feel confident in saying we nodded at each other, said hello. I strove for an affect of normalcy. And I never said anything to you about that night. You have never said anything to me.

Specifically, we saw each other at the Vanity Fair Party after the Academy Awards in 2005, the year my father won the Lifetime Achievement Award. I saw you again at the NAACP Image Awards, briefly, in 2009. I believe you were there with your daughters. We both accepted awards that night. I encountered you at a party in Los Angeles before the 2011 Academy Awards, during which there was a planned tribute to my grandmother, who had just passed away. These were events that were supposed to be happy, and they were tainted.

I don’t recall ever meeting any of the women who have spoken out against you, Russell. But I can’t leave those women twisting in the wind. Maybe the recalling of this incident can be helpful. I don’t know if it can.

I have built a life in the past 25 years and a reputation in my industry. I need no one to have this visualization of me. I will, like the others, lose work because of this. I realize how privileged I am to be able to risk that. I have children. I’m aware that every mistake, act of thoughtlessness, hypocrisy or cruelty I’ve committed in my 50 years will be excavated, and they’ll see all of it.

There is so much guilt, and so much shame. There is an excruciating internal reckoning. As a woman of color, I cannot express how wrenching it is to write this about a successful man of color. Again, shame about who I was years ago, choices made years ago. In this very moment, I feel a pang to protect your daughters. I don’t think you are inclined to protect mine.

In response to this article, Simmons responded that he is stepping down from his various businesses to “commit myself to continuing my personal growth, spiritual learning and above all to listening.” His full statement is below.

I have been informed with great anguish of Jenny Lumet’s recollection about our night together in 1991. I know Jenny and her family and have seen her several times over the years since the evening she described. While her memory of that evening is very different from mine, it is now clear to me that her feelings of fear and intimidation are real. While I have never been violent, I have been thoughtless and insensitive in some of my relationships over many decades, and I sincerely apologize.

This is a time of great transition. The voices of the voiceless, those who have been hurt or shamed, deserve and need to be heard. As the corridors of power inevitably make way for a new generation, I don’t want to be a distraction, so I am removing myself from the businesses that I founded. The companies will now be run by a new and diverse generation of extraordinary executives who are moving the culture and consciousness forward. I will convert the studio for yogic science into a not-for-profit center of learning and healing. As for me, I will step aside and commit myself to continuing my personal growth, spiritual learning and above all to listening.

Contact
Change the At to “@” and the DOT to “.”
Syndicate this site (XML)
Powered by
Movable Type

Soo Lawyers, Trump has to go back to the courts?
These activist Judges are a pox on our Constitution
————
Of Course: Judge Decides She’s Commander in Chief and Orders Military to Continue Recruiting Transgenders, Because We’re Now In a Lawless War of All Against All
It seems that judges should have some regard for the constitutional scheme of separation of powers, but apparently Social Justice imperatives trump any notion of democracy and lawful order.

The military must begin accepting transgender recruits Jan. 1 despite a ban ordered by President Trump this year, according to a D.C. district court judge.
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly had already granted a preliminary injunction in the Doe v. Trump lawsuit filed by a group of transgender troops. She clarified this week that her order also blocks Defense Secretary Jim Mattis from delaying the recruiting.

Mattis had planned to begin accepting transgender recruits on the first of the year before Trump tweeted in July that they would not be allowed to serve in the military in any capacity. The president later followed up with an order telling the Pentagon to abandon the plan, which got underway during the previous administration.

“Secretary Mattis is a defendant in this case, he is directly bound by the injunction and he cannot change the policy that existed before President Trump issued his order,” the judge said.

In other words, Obama’s executive orders as president are still in force because this judge likes Obama better and elections don’t matter.

I honestly don’t see how the United States remains a coherent unified nation.

Congressional Republicans’ plans to slap unprecedented new taxes on higher education have left college leaders shocked and scrambling — the latest salvo in what some observers say is a growing culture war on a higher education system seen as elitist and out of touch.
——-
oh, if that were all.

the problem is the administrators, who over shadow the faculty, make counter intuititive decisions, enforce pc, and are paid exorbitant sums.

I know one of them who makes $750,000 per year, inclusive of wages, benefits and perks.

there is an army of them.

the bar association has undergone a similiar transmorgification

the administrative state is a poison weed regulating every aspect of life

As to North Korea, it is in this area we have the most trust in President Trump. PDT will “handle” lil Rocket Man. Then Iran. As has been written here previously, North Korea is the toughest nut to crack because it is always difficult for a superpower to deal with countries that are so poor they have little to lose. Iran will be much easier to deal with even though most “experts” think the opposite is true.
————
Admin, would love to hear more of your thoughts about North Korea and Iran. Are those the two “mega-earthquakes” you were referring to in your article? Or were your referring to the 2018 midterms and Trump’s next Supreme Court appointment? Or something else entirely??

I know, I know, all good things in due time, but can you at least give us a hint?

Not guilty of 1st degree murder, not guilty of 2nd degree murder, not even guilty of manslaughter.

“Hmm .. what’s under this here cloth? Why, it’s a gun! I wonder if it works. Lemme just shoot at that concrete wall over there .. DANG! The ricochet hit some poor tourist in the back! .. First I’m deported all those times, and now THIS .. I just can’t seem to catch a break .. ”

When you are in the public limelight, you must decide whether to speak up, or shut the fuck up, and the answer depends on whether speaking out at a time like this, when emotions are on the ragged edge serves the political cause.

The public defender spoke out, and said things that added insult to injury to those who believe illegal immigration is a threat to the nation. In so doing, he set the illegal immigration movement he support light years back.

A clueless city in a clueless state delivers a clueless verdict. But clueless of all is the bitter partisan public defender who lacks grace.

On or about December 8, the Obama Dimocrats will try to stop funding the government if their DACA demands are not met. President Trump has because of this Steinle verdict yet another powerful weapon to break Obama Dimocrats. President Trump will say to the country that Obama Dimocrats don’t want to pay teachers/police/firefighters/marines/soldiers/sailors because the Obama Dimocrats care more for illegal aliens:

The next deadline for Congress and the president to agree on budget terms and funding levels is December 8.

Such a deadline usually means both parties negotiate new budget and borrowing terms. Negotiations are usually focused tightly on fiscal issues to avoid a partial shutdown of the federal government.

But this time, Democrats are hoping to force President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans to grant amnesty to certain illegal immigrants, or else face a damaging federal government shutdown that could hurt Republicans in the 2018 midterm elections a year from now.

The White House is clearly irked at the Democratic maneuvering behind the scenes to force amnesty for young adults who were brought to the United States, illegally, as children.

In early September, Trump rescinded former President Barack Obama’s order temporarily protecting such illegal immigrants. The order was known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). But the revocation doesn’t take effect until March 5, 2018.

On Tuesday morning, Trump fired off a warning shot just as he was to meet with the Democratic leaders in the House and Senate, Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Chuck Schumer, respectively.

“Meeting with ‘Chuck and Nancy’ today about keeping government open and working,” Trump tweeted. “Problem is they want illegal immigrants flooding into our Country unchecked, are weak on Crime and want to substantially RAISE Taxes. I don’t see a deal!”

The last line prompted Pelosi and Schumer to cancel. Still, Trump met with House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Trump even kept empty chairs for Pelosi and Schumer open, letting the press take in the sight.

It was a public swipe against the Democrats, perhaps effective should the minority party somehow close the federal government down for a bit. And Republican officials note that Schumer, during the 2013 shutdown, blasted Republican House Speaker John Boehner for negotiating on unrelated topics with Republican critics of Obamacare during the fall 2013 shutdown. [snip]

Now, Schumer and Pelosi appear to be angling try to get immigration reform, in the form of a permanent codification of DACA.

Congressional Democrats are under heavy pressure from liberal groups to get a deal on DACA, and soon. There are almost 700,000 people in the United States now in DACA.

But despite Trump’s willingness to deal on DACA in exchange for a border wall — at some point in the future — the White House criticized Schumer for changing principles on efforts to avoid shutdowns.

“In the past, Chuck Schumer has repeatedly made clear that he opposes government spending bills with strings attached,” said Hogan Gidley, deputy press secretary for Trump, in an emailed statement to LifeZette. “We hope Democrats follow Sen. Schumer’s lead and not hold government funding hostage to their own pet legislative projects, which would jeopardize our national security. Government spending bills should fully fund our military, homeland security, and all essential operations to protect the American people’s prosperity and safety.”

One moore point, Wbboei: guess where President Trump will be on December 8? President Trump will be hosting a large rally in Pensacola, Florida.

President Trump on December 8 can campaign for Judge Roy Moore in the Alabama election because Pensacola is so close to Alabama. But President Trump can also attack Obama Dimocrats and Doug Jones on Steinle/illegal immigrants if the Obama Dimocrats attempt a government shutdown.

This trap by PDT is so obvious only the dumb and dim Obama Dimocrats can’t see it.

We hope Democrats follow Sen. Schumer’s lead and not hold government funding hostage to their own pet legislative projects, which would jeopardize our national security. Government spending bills should fully fund our military, homeland security, and all essential operations to protect the American people’s prosperity and safety.”
—–
The dims are in a pincer of their own making:

By shutting down the government to protect illegals, they show that they favor the rights of illegals over the rights of citizens.

By shutting down government to protect illegals, they put the nation at risk by the failure to fund the institutions that protect citizens, namely homeland security, and the military.

In sum, they have managed to paint themselves into a corner, by virtue of their failure to restrain the radical elements within their party.

As a result, they have turned themselves into pariahs and it will be an easy task for Trump to point this out.

Assume for the moment that to appease their radical base, the dims do shut down the government, and the stock market crashes. That will be the end of the party. Unlike the question of the early 1950s of who lost China, the answer to this one will be clear. Which is why I hope they do it. The public needs to see what idiots these people are and seeing is believing.

Likewise, when the spokesman for the San Francisco district attorneys office says both sides presented excellent cases, despite the fact that the district attorney lost the case big time, one has to wonder whether their spokesman has a firm grasp of reality.

Then again, San Francisco is no stranger to hallucinatory drugs, and it would be highly presumptuous to assume that none of those fumes ever drifted into the district attorneys office, up to and including now.

Why do the Dims and the media (but I repeat myself) assume that a govt shutdown always hurts Republicans?

For the last two shutdowns, the R’s weren’t hurt at all. In the 1996 elections (following the two shutdowns of 1995), the R’s retained control of congress for the first time in decades (losing only two House seats and gaining two Senate seats). In the 2014 elections (following the 2013 shutdown), the R’s regained control of the Senate and retained control of the House by the largest margin in a century.

With Trump constantly tweeting out what the issues are and bypassing the media narrative, are the Dims in as strong a position as they think they are?

When Defense Attorney Matt Gonzalez and Public Defender Jeff Adachi chose to make the exoneration of their client Jose Ines Garcia Zarate in the death of Kate Steinle an opportunity to attack the president, vice president and attorney general, my immediate thought was these two young lawyers are fools. They should learn when to keep their mouths shut.

But no matter — because the real villains in the Kate Steinle story are the San Francisco politicians who made the rules that prevented ICE from removing the already five-time deported criminal Zarate from the country.

These SF pols already had Kate’s murder forever on their consciences, what they have of them anyway. Now they will also have to deal with the growing disgust of the American public and an administration that loathes these politicians, backed up by a Supreme Court that will ultimately be on the side of that administration for most actions it might take.

So the appalling Steinle decision will have unintended consequences that I will now predict:

Attorney General Sessions, with the firm backing of the president, will redouble his efforts to do away with sanctuary cities both financially and legally. It may take some time, but the days of these sanctuaries are over.
ICE will be set free to do its work. (It already has been, but even more so now with fewer complaints.)

The border wall will be built, at least a good part of it, and Trump will find it far easier to get his way with border security. The Dreamers will remain, but the public will back Trump on further security measures that will be enacted. Those measures will be stronger than hitherto predicted.

Fewer people will “leave their hearts in San Francisco.” Many Californians have already left the state, but some who have been on the fence about decamping will get off that fence and finally leave.

Although I’m probably overly optimistic here, fewer people will use the noxious euphemism “undocumented immigrants.” (Well, maybe a dozen or so. Or perhaps Zerate should have a document of his own that says “I’m a bloodthirsty killer. Set me free!”)

If all this — or even a decent part — happens, it will be a fitting memorial to Kate and, one hopes, some solace to her family.

A final area of interest is the jury system itself. Who were these people that made this decision? Supposedly, they came to the trial unbiased by (or ignorant of) the massive press coverage of this murder. Is that possible? Did they lie? Was this another case of jury nullification like the O.J. trial?

Fewer people will “leave their hearts in San Francisco.” Many Californians have already left the state, but some who have been on the fence about decamping will get off that fence and finally leave.
——————
I’m one of them. Recently bought a house in Texas, and will be moving there as soon as my lease here in Silicon Valley is up.

So long, California! You used to be a great state, when I was growing up and Reagan was governor. I prefer to remember you that way.

The media has been speculating that I fired Rex Tillerson or that he would be leaving soon – FAKE NEWS! He’s not leaving and while we disagree on certain subjects, (I call the final shots) we work well together and America is highly respected again!https://t.co/FrqiPLFJ1E

There’s less to the news than meets the eye. Former Trump-administration national-security adviser Michael Flynn is expected to plead guilty today to lying to the FBI regarding his conversations with Russia’s ambassador to the United States.

Flynn, who is reportedly cooperating with the investigation of special counsel Robert Mueller, is pleading guilty in federal district court in Washington, D.C., to a one-count criminal information (which is filed by a prosecutor in cases when a defendant waives his right to be indicted by a grand jury).

The false-statement charge, brought under Section 1001 of the federal penal code, stems from Flynn’s conversation on December 29, 2016, with Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak. At the time, Flynn was slated to become the national-security adviser to President-elect Donald Trump. The conversation occurred on the same day that then-president Barack Obama announced sanctions against Russia for its interference in the 2016 election. It is believed to have been recorded by the FBI because Kislyak, as an agent of a foreign power, was subject to monitoring under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Mueller has charged Flynn with falsely telling FBI agents that he did not ask the ambassador “to refrain from escalating the situation” in response to the sanctions. In being questioned by the agents on January 24, 2017, Flynn also lied when he claimed he could not recall a subsequent conversation with Kislyak, in which the ambassador told Flynn that the Putin regime had “chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of [Flynn’s] request.”

Furthermore, a week before the sanctions were imposed, Flynn had also spoken to Kislyak, asking the ambassador to delay or defeat a vote on a pending United Nations resolution. The criminal information charges that Flynn lied to the FBI by denying both that he’d made this request and that he’d spoken afterward with Kislyak about Russia’s response to it.

Thus, in all, four lies are specified in the one count. The potential sentence is zero to five years’ imprisonment. Assuming Flynn cooperates fully with Mueller’s investigators, there will be little, if any, jail time.

Obviously, it was wrong of Flynn to give the FBI false information; he could, after all, have simply refused to speak with the agents in the first place. That said, as I argued early this year, it remains unclear why the Obama Justice Department chose to investigate Flynn. There was nothing wrong with the incoming national-security adviser’s having meetings with foreign counterparts or discussing such matters as the sanctions in those meetings. Plus, if the FBI had FISA recordings of Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak, there was no need to ask Flynn what the conversations entailed.

Flynn, an early backer of Donald Trump and a fierce critic of Obama’s national-security policies, was generally despised by Obama administration officials. Hence, there has always been cynical suspicion that the decision to interview him was driven by the expectation that he would provide the FBI with an account inconsistent with the recorded conversation — i.e., that Flynn was being set up for prosecution on a process crime.

While initial reporting is portraying Flynn’s guilty plea as a major breakthrough in Mueller’s investigation of potential Trump-campaign collusion with the Russian regime, I suspect the opposite is true.

Speculation that Flynn is now cooperating in Mueller’s investigation stirred in recent days due to reports that Flynn had pulled out of a joint defense agreement (or “common interest” arrangement) to share information with other subjects of the investigation. As an ethical matter, it is inappropriate for an attorney whose client is cooperating with the government (or having negotiations toward that end) to continue strategizing with, and having quasi-privileged communications with, other subjects of the investigation and their counsel.

Nevertheless, as I explained in connection with George Papadopoulos (who also pled guilty in Mueller’s investigation for lying to the FBI), when a prosecutor has a cooperator who was an accomplice in a major criminal scheme, the cooperator is made to plead guilty to the scheme. This is critical because it proves the existence of the scheme. In his guilty-plea allocution (the part of a plea proceeding in which the defendant admits what he did that makes him guilty), the accomplice explains the scheme and the actions taken by himself and his co-conspirators to carry it out. This goes a long way toward proving the case against all of the subjects of the investigation.

That is not happening in Flynn’s situation. Instead, like Papadopoulos, he is being permitted to plead guilty to a mere process crime. A breaking report from ABC News indicates that Flynn is prepared to testify that Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians — initially to lay the groundwork for mutual efforts against ISIS in Syria. That, however, is exactly the sort of thing the incoming national-security adviser is supposed to do in a transition phase between administrations. If it were part of the basis for a “collusion” case arising out of Russia’s election meddling, then Flynn would not be pleading guilty to a process crime — he’d be pleading guilty to an espionage conspiracy.

Understand: If Flynn’s conversations with the Russian ambassador had evinced the existence of a quid pro quo collusion arrangement — that the Trump administration would ease or eliminate sanctions on Russia as a payback for Russia’s cyber-espionage against the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic party — it would have been completely appropriate, even urgently necessary, for the Obama Justice Department to investigate Flynn. But if that had happened, Mueller would not be permitting Flynn to settle the case with a single count of lying to FBI agents. Instead, we would be looking at a major conspiracy indictment, and Flynn would be made to plead to far more serious offenses if he wanted a deal — cooperation in exchange for sentencing leniency.

To the contrary, for all the furor, we have a small-potatoes plea in Flynn’s case — just as we did in Papadopoulos’s case, despite extensive “collusion” evidence. Meanwhile, the only major case Mueller has brought, against former Trump-campaign chairman Paul Manafort and an associate, has nothing to do with the 2016 election. It is becoming increasingly palpable that, whatever “collusion” means, there was no actionable, conspiratorial complicity by the Trump campaign in the Kremlin’s machinations.

admin, thanks for the input.
also, notice how Mueller/Dems always drop big bombs when Trump is getting great recognition? like making huge progress on tax reform? it is all so predictable and sickening.

matthew77
I know what you mean about Calif…while it will always be much more interesting to me than Fla…it is really sad how quickly it is going downhill

Santa Monica is one of the highest real estate markets in the USA & it is turning into Skid Row…pathetic, vagrants, panhandlers & druggies everywhere…downtown LA actually has camps with tents of dregs along the sideway streets

everything is priced up the gazoo…try registering you car & gas…it will cost you big time…rents completely out of control

so sad for a once beautiful state…at least we both have good…for me…wonderful…memories…

I’ve got one thing to say about Flynn…
President Trump FIRED him for lying to Trump Admin & Pence…

…threw him out of the Trump admin because he was not honest & trustworthy…

so what is Flynn going to do now? a man who is an island on to himself and also trying to protecting his corrupt son…
PDT forshadowed when he said ‘sometimes an ally turns on you’
**********************************************

between Sessions & Flynn I can’t say which one is worse…both have done so much to damage PDT & bring on all this unnecessary investigating of DT’s every breath…such opportunists…putting themselves before what is best for the country…

Flynn in Trump admin for 25 days & was part of the O admin…how far will he go with his lies…

The Trump administration switched sides Wednesday in a case pending before the Supreme Court that could retroactively nullify tens of thousands of agency decisions.

The case, Lucia v. SEC, has major implications for the process by which federal agencies try or punish those in violation of laws or regulations.

The litigation concerns an agency’s decision to allow career bureaucrats to preside as the functional equivalent of judges during enforcement proceedings. These officials, called administrative law judges (ALJs), are hired by career bureaucrats. They are not appointed by the president, a court or an agency head, but they exercise significant authority on behalf of the U.S. government in official proceedings.

ALJs can, among other things, issue subpoenas, make decisions about the credibility of witnesses or the admissibility of evidence, and issues provisional rulings that are generally upheld on final review — if a final review occurs at all.

The Constitution requires that the president, the courts, or the head of an executive department appoint all “inferior officers” of the United States.

A group of investment managers challenged the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) use of ALJs in an enforcement proceeding convened against them for alleged violations of securities law. The managers argue these proceedings are unlawful, because the ALJs are exactly the sort of “inferior officer” who must be appointed by the president, the court, or the head of an agency, since they exercise meaningful discretion on behalf of the federal government.

A lower federal court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, found in favor of the SEC. A three-judge panel found for the SEC, and the full court affirmed that decision on a five to five vote. The investment managers then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Obama Justice Department sided with the SEC in the dispute, but Trump’s new solicitor general, Noel Francisco, changed positions Wednesday, and backed the money managers.

“Upon further consideration, and in light of the implications for the exercise of executive power under Article II, the government is now of the view that such ALJs are officers because they exercise ‘significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States,’” Francisco wrote in a new brief at the Supreme Court.

A Supreme Court ruling against the SEC could have important implications for similarly-situated officials in other agencies. ALJs often preside in actions brought by a whole host of federal agencies. A finding against the SEC would potentially jeopardize, and perhaps invalidate, the legal status of thousands of other agency proceedings.

The Justice Department generally represents federal agencies before the high court. Accordingly, the solicitor general asked the justices to appoint another lawyer to represent the SEC as the litigation continues.

The high court could decide to take the case as soon as January.

This is not “drain the swamp”. This is napalm the swamp.

Matthew77, look to this to see a mere hint of the big big big Trumpquakes coming. Giants will fall.

Arkansas political observers were surprised to read Thursday that Republican Sen. Tom Cotton may become CIA director in a Trump administration shakeup, but names already are circulating for potential appointees to replace him in the Senate.

Among those under discussion is White House press secretary Sarah Sanders, the daughter of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

“I would support Sarah in a New York minute!” former U.S. Rep. Tommy Robinson, an Arkansas Democrat turned Republican, told the Washington Examiner.

Santa Monica is one of the highest real estate markets in the USA & it is turning into Skid Row…pathetic, vagrants, panhandlers & druggies everywhere…downtown LA actually has camps with tents of dregs along the sideway streets
————
They need more diversity.

Wbboei, Brian Ross really bit the big one. President-Elect Trump had every right to contact whatever foreign government he wished to contact. Once elected the presidential transition staff become government officials so the Logan Act (unconstitutional as it likely is) is not applicable. This development blows up the entire Brian Ross narrative and makes Mueller more of a fool out to destroy PDT with nonsense.

WASHINGTON—The Senate passed sweeping revisions to the U.S. tax code past midnight Saturday after Republicans navigated a thicket of internal divisions over deficits and other issues to place their imprint on the economy.

The bill, which included about $1.4 trillion in tax cuts, would lower the corporate rate to 20% from 35%, reshape international business tax rules and temporarily lower individual taxes. It also touched other Republican goals, including opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling and repealing the mandate that individuals purchase health insurance, which would punch a sizable hole in the 2010 Affordable Care Act. But some objectives, such as repealing the alternative minimum tax, fell by the wayside in last-minute wrangling.

“In the end it all came together and we’re pretty excited about what we’ve been able to accomplish for the American people,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said in an interview Friday. “We’ve got a corporate rate at 20% that we think makes us competitive in the world again and provided substantial middle-income tax relief.”

The bill passed 51-49, with all but one Republican voting for it and all Democrats voting against. The sole Republican, Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, stated his opposition before the vote, citing worries it would expand budget deficits.

The bill’s ultimate passage would mark a legislative victory for President Donald Trump and his fellow Republicans. Mr. Trump has made the tax overhaul a centerpiece of his economic policy goals, focusing on a rewrite of business taxes, which he has argued make the U.S. uncompetitive internationally. The bill could also give lawmakers something to campaign on in the 2018 midterm elections.

The House and Senate still need to reconcile competing versions of the tax plan, something GOP leaders hope to do by Christmas. The House and Senate bills overlap in many ways, and lawmakers expressed optimism about getting a final deal done.

“The bills are not all that different,” Mr. McConnell said. “We tried to move ours somewhat in the House direction.” [snip]

The bill would prevent individuals from deducting state and local income taxes. That is likely to raise federal taxes on upper-middle-class wage earners in high-tax states, such as California, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey and New York. They are all represented by Democrats in the Senate.

The standard deduction would be nearly doubled and the child tax credit would rise, while personal exemptions would be repealed. For many households, that combination would modestly increase the amount of earnings that aren’t subject to income tax.

Good to see not one Obama Dimocrat voted for tax cuts. This should make it even easier to defeat these Obama Dimocrats in 2018.

admin
December 2, 2017 at 2:16 am
————
ABC has a bad habit of publishing lies, and when they get caught, they “CLARIFY”.

In a world where the FBI can and will lie to a witness, BUT the witness cannot lie or withhold information from the FBI without committing a crime, punishable by jail, we should, indeed we must, allow the witness who lies to the the FBI to clarify after he gets caught, SO THE SCALES OF JUSTICE between government and the citizenry are balanced. This avoids entrapment, and preserves the presumption of innocence. Lying in court, however, should continue to be treated as perjury. Its the lying to the FBI who are allowed by court decisions to lie to you which creates a grave injustice and hearkens back to the Court of the Star Chamber. It has become quite clear that the FBI and CIA are not so good at keeping up with the KGB, but when it comes to praying on the citizens of their own country, as opposed to illegals, they are masters.

The only instance I can recall when Ly’n Bryan—no, not that disgraced NBC former anchor Williams who was sent down to the farm team, i.e. MSNBC after he got caught lying, but that disgraceful “investigative” reporter Ross othewise known as seldom right but never in doubt and he always gets there firstest with the mostest and when he is proven wrong, he clarifies. the only time he got his story right was when he interviewed that useless–more useful now that he is dead, Senator Lautenberg who staggered out of a watering hole at the 2008 dim convention, and Brian did a close up interview which was intended to convince a skeptical audience that the political class have their dark side—thanks Brian for that hot scoop.

JB would like to have $10 million so he could retire in comfort in Florida.

Me? My dreams are less grandiose.

All I want for Christmas is the appointment of a special counsel to bird dog Mooler and his corrupt entourage and to throw the lot of them in jail.

A dirty cop, and a traitor, in my humble opinion. A grand inquisitor of Seville along with his dirty henchman Weisman who is right out of Nazi Germany.

Between now and then however we have the sound analysis of the only sober man at National Review—Andy McCarthy whose legal analysis is superb.

His point is this: if he intended to use Flynn to prove a scheme between himself, Trump and Putin, then he Moooler would have had Flynn plead guilty to that scheme, and then work his way up the food chain to his intended target, the president.

Mooler is a tool of the deep state. He has no loyalty to the country. And he plays dirty. He has but one objective, to bring down the president. That is it. Ty Cobb is an amiable dunce. Trump needs a first class legal team to defend him, not a Beltway dilanate who should be teaching in law school. Ed Rollins has said as much, and as usual Ed is right.
———-

While initial reporting is portraying Flynn’s guilty plea as a major breakthrough in Mueller’s investigation of potential Trump-campaign collusion with the Russian regime, I suspect the opposite is true. Speculation that Flynn is now cooperating in Mueller’s investigation stirred in recent days due to reports that Flynn had pulled out of a joint defense agreement (or “common interest” arrangement) to share information with other subjects of the investigation. As an ethical matter, it is inappropriate for an attorney whose client is cooperating with the government (or having negotiations toward that end) to continue strategizing with, and having quasi-privileged communications with, other subjects of the investigation and their counsel. Nevertheless, as I explained in connection with George Papadopoulos (who also pled guilty in Mueller’s investigation for lying to the FBI), when a prosecutor has a cooperator who was an accomplice in a major criminal scheme, the cooperator is made to plead guilty to the scheme. This is critical because it proves the existence of the scheme. In his guilty-plea allocution (the part of a plea proceeding in which the defendant admits what he did that makes him guilty), the accomplice explains the scheme and the actions taken by himself and his co-conspirators to carry it out. This goes a long way toward proving the case against all of the subjects of the investigation. That is not happening in Flynn’s situation. Instead, like Papadopoulos, he is being permitted to plead guilty to a mere process crime. A breaking report from ABC News indicates that Flynn is prepared to testify that Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians — initially to lay the groundwork for mutual efforts against ISIS in Syria. That, however, is exactly the sort of thing the incoming national-security adviser is supposed to do in a transition phase between administrations. If it were part of the basis for a “collusion” case arising out of Russia’s election meddling, then Flynn would not be pleading guilty to a process crime — he’d be pleading guilty to an espionage conspiracy. Understand: If Flynn’s conversations with the Russian ambassador had evinced the existence of a quid pro quo collusion arrangement — that the Trump administration would ease or eliminate sanctions on Russia as a payback for Russia’s cyber-espionage against the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic party — it would have been completely appropriate, even urgently necessary, for the Obama Justice Department to investigate Flynn. But if that had happened, Mueller would not be permitting Flynn to settle the case with a single count of lying to FBI agents. Instead, we would be looking at a major conspiracy indictment, and Flynn would be made to plead to far more serious offenses if he wanted a deal — cooperation in exchange for sentencing leniency. To the contrary, for all the furor, we have a small-potatoes plea in Flynn’s case — just as we did in Papadopoulos’s case, despite extensive “collusion” evidence. Meanwhile, the only major case Mueller has brought, against former Trump-campaign chairman Paul Manafort and an associate, has nothing to do with the 2016 election. It is becoming increasingly palpable that, whatever “collusion” means, there was no actionable, conspiratorial complicity by the Trump campaign in the Kremlin’s machinations.

WASHINGTON — The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, removed a top F.B.I. agent this summer from his investigation into Russian election meddling after the Justice Department’s inspector general began examining whether the agent had sent text messages that expressed anti-Trump political views, according to three people briefed on the matter.

The agent, Peter Strzok, is considered one of the most experienced and trusted F.B.I. counterintelligence investigators. He helped lead the investigation into whether Hillary Clinton had mishandled classified information on her private email account, and then played a major role in the investigation into links between President Trump’s campaign and Russia.

But Mr. Strzok was reassigned this summer from Mr. Mueller’s investigation to the F.B.I.’s human resources department, where he has been stationed since. The people briefed on the case said the transfer followed the discovery of text messages in which Mr. Strzok and a colleague reacted to news events, like presidential debates, in ways that could appear critical of Mr. Trump.

“Immediately upon learning of the allegations, the special counsel’s office removed Peter Strzok from the investigation,” said a spokesman for the special counsel’s office, Peter Carr.

The inspector general’s office at the Justice Department said that as part of a larger inquiry it was conducting into how the F.B.I. had handled investigations related to the 2016 election, the office was “reviewing allegations involving communications between certain individuals, and will report its findings regarding those allegations promptly upon completion of the review of them.”

A lawyer for Mr. Strzok did not return several messages seeking comment. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department said that “we are aware of the allegation and are taking any and all appropriate steps.” ABC News reported in August that Mr. Strzok had left the investigation, but the reason for the move was unclear at the time.

Mr. Strzok’s reassignment shows that Mr. Mueller moved swiftly in the face of what could be perceived as bias by one of his agents amid a politically charged inquiry into Mr. Trump’s campaign and administration. But the existence of the text messages is likely to fuel claims by Mr. Trump that he is the target of a witch hunt.

The discovery of the text messages came at a crucial moment in Mr. Mueller’s investigation. At the time, Mr. Mueller was ramping up his inquiry into Mr. Trump’s former advisers, while also coming under criticism for putting many donors to Democratic candidates on his team. Some conservatives encouraged Mr. Trump to fire Mr. Mueller, saying the investigation was tainted. Mr. Trump seriously entertained the idea but ultimately backed down.

It is not clear what Mr. Strzok said in his text messages. F.B.I. regulations allow agents to express opinions “as an individual privately and publicly on political subjects and candidates.”

Current and former law enforcement officials who worked with Mr. Strzok said they had never seen any evidence that he allowed his political views to influence the investigations he led. They said that Mr. Strzok, a former Army officer, was deeply trusted by James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, and that he would probably have become one of the bureau’s top officials had the questions not been raised about his text messages.

The inquiry into Mr. Strzok is being conducted by the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, who is leading a broad examination of how the F.B.I. handled the Clinton email investigation. It is not clear whether Mr. Horowitz will make the text messages public as part of his report in the inquiry. Mr. Horowitz, who announced the beginning of his investigation in January, declined to characterize his findings but said that he hoped to have a copy of his report released by March or April.

said it before & will say it again…have respect for the integrity & objectivity of Alan Dershowitz & Johnathan Turley

(Alan) Dershowitz said, “Well, the last thing any prosecutor wants to do is to have to indict his primary witness for lying. Because if you indict your witness for lying, it really means he’s not useful as a witness, he has no credibility. I’m sure the prosecutor was trying to indict him for some scheme or conspiracy that involved other people in the White House, but there is nothing there, and he had to, finally come down and indict him for lying, which makes him a useless witness. So, this is not a show of strength by the prosecutor. It’s a show of weakness. It’s a show that they really have nothing on anybody above of Flynn and that Flynn made the terrible mistake about lying about something he could have told truth about. Because the two things he lied about were perfectly lawful and perfectly proper for somebody to do during the transition. And so, I think it really reflects a weakness, not a strength in Mueller’s prosecution.”

*************************

Turley has been saying for months ‘there is no crime’ and refuting all takers & saying ‘that is not a crime’

And from under a velvet gown Brian drew a gun and shot himself down. When the mob came and got from the jail. Madam. And hung him from a hanging tree. And the moment before he died, he lifted up his ugly head an cried, Madam, Lyn Brian’s unable to lunch today. Yes, tragedy comes in more than one form, and sometimes it is indistinguishable from retributive justice.

LOl wbboei…that’s the number !!!! Anyway, very happy the GOP finally got something done with the tax cuts. Although McCain , Collins and the one blew healthcare reform, this law will put a big dent in Obamacare and may ultimately lead to it’s demise.
Trump now has a little momentum despite the Flynn fiasco and needs to move on illegal immigration as I agree with those above saying the shocking(not to me as I have family out there and they are super libs) verdict in the Steinle case will ease the way for tougher restrictions.
Not sure where Drudge is on Trump as the site flip flops between good and bad. Trump’s disapproval apparently up to 62% while headline is one of Muller’s guys was a Trump hater.

Sooner or later, it must come down to this, if we are to have a nation of laws. As the writer, Mike Walsh points out, this is not a case of first impression:

The Steinle case is important, not simply as a matter of (at the very least) criminally negligent homicide, but as a fatality caused by a man who should not have been in San Francisco, or anywhere else in the U.S., at all. It’s good that the feds are now going to charge him, but the damage has been done. Deported multiple times, the perp kept coming back, knowing he would find “sanctuary,” not only in San Francisco but everywhere else in the state of California.

“Sanctuary” from what? Sanctuary from the laws of the United States.

Every state, municipality and local jurisdiction that declares itself a place of “SANCTUARY” should henceforth be treated as being in OPEN REBELLION AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, in exactly the same way that South Carolina and the secessionist Confederacy was — and was treated as such by Abraham Lincoln — in 1861. (snip)

In his first inaugural address in March 1861, Lincoln said:

“Plainly, the central idea of secession, is THE ESSENCE OF ANARCHY.” President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions would do well to consult that text, in which Lincoln went on to say:

I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken; and to the extent of my ability I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States…

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors.

YOU HAVE NO OATH REGISTERED IN HEAVEN TO DESTROY THIS GOVERNMENT . . .

WHILE I SHALL HAVE THE MOST SOLEMN ON TO “PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND IT.”

I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearth-stone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by THE BETTER ANGELS OF OUR NATURE.

Lincoln did it — as the Left’s favorite saying goes — by any means necessary, which ultimately concluded with federal troops occupying the rebellious states and the re-imposition of federal law.

Philosophically, President Trump should follow his lead, and not just by withholding federal funds from cities like San Francisco. Because THE LEFT NO LONGER BELIEVES IN ANGELS, OR LAWS OR MUCH OF ANYTHING ELSE, EXCEPT THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR NATON AS FOUNDED AND THE FURTHERANCE OF THEIR OWN GLOBALIST AMBITIONS. . .

THEY NEED TO BE CONFRONTED QUICKLY.

IF we really do have a government of laws and not men — not to mention of illegal aliens — let’s prove it.

There are globalists on the court, Breyer being the most determined, and the wise Latina being the dumbest. Yes. It runs the gamut. And then of course you would still have to worry about the boneless wonder, Roberts. But given the right provocation, the legal strategy of forcing these santuary cities to comply with federal law might work, with one more strong conservative.

ABC News announced Saturday that it has suspended investigative reporter Brian Ross for four weeks without pay after Ross was forced to correct a bombshell on-air report about Michael Flynn.

“We deeply regret and apologize for the serious error we made yesterday. The reporting conveyed by Brian Ross during the special report had not been fully vetted through our editorial standards process,” ABC said in a statement. “As a result of our continued reporting over the next several hours ultimately we determined the information was wrong and we corrected the mistake on air and online.”

“It is vital we get the story right and retain the trust we have built with our audience — these are our core principles,” the statement added. “We fell far short of that yesterday.”

Citing a single anonymous source, Ross told viewers during an ABC special report on Friday morning that Flynn was prepared to testify that Donald Trump, as a candidate for president, told him to contact Russians.

During Friday’s edition of “World News Tonight,” Ross walked back his report, telling viewers that the source who had provided the initial information for his story later told him that it was as president-elect, not as a candidate, that Trump asked Flynn to contact Russians.

An ABC News tweet about the report was retweeted about 25,000 times before being deleted.

Ross’ incorrect report prompted a dramatic reaction in the financial markets, and the Dow fell more than 350 points. Stocks largely recovered later in the day.

CNN had initially reached out to ABC News early Friday afternoon to ask why Ross’ initial reporting was not included in the network’s online story about Flynn pleading guilty for lying to the FBI. Hours later, a spokesperson told CNN a correction was forthcoming.

But ABC News initially attempted to downplay the mistake, referring to its correction as a “clarification” on “World News Tonight” and then online. After a barrage of criticism, the network changed the language online from “clarification” to “correction.”

Saturday evening’s statement further ramped up the language; the network now calls it a “serious error.”

Ross commented later Saturday night. “My job is to hold people accountable and that’s why I agree with being held accountable myself,” he tweeted.

Shortly after that, President Trump weighed in, tweeting his “congratulations” to ABC News for suspending Ross.

Multiple ABC News employees, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t publicly authorized to discuss the matter, told CNNMoney on Saturday there was internal embarrassment over the blunder.

“It’s a major embarrassment,” one ABC News employee said.

“It makes me cringe,” echoed another. “This is not what any networks needs when people are so quick to say ‘fake news’ to you. It makes me sick to my stomach.”

The only part of this story that is interesting is that there is no explanation as to why the ABC News report was such a big error. The reason why it is such a big error is that the transition team is fully authorized to contact whomever they wish, including foreign ministers. Brian Ross initially said it was “candidate” Trump who ordered contact with Russia, even though it was President-Elect Trump who properly directed his subordinates to initiate transition processes.

Neither CNN nor ABC explain why the report by ABC was so wrong because to do so, once again, demands they say President Trump did nothing wrong but rather did what he was supposed to do.

House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes has issued an angry demand to the FBI and Department of Justice to explain why they kept the committee in the dark over the reason Special Counsel Robert Mueller kicked a key supervising FBI agent off the Trump-Russia investigation.

Stories in both the Washington Post and New York Times on Saturday reported that Peter Strzok, who played a key role in the original FBI investigation into the Trump-Russia matter, and then a key role in Mueller’s investigation, and who earlier had played an equally critical role in the FBI’s Hillary Clinton email investigation, was reassigned out of the Mueller office because of anti-Trump texts he exchanged with a top FBI lawyer, Lisa Page, with whom Strzok was having an extramarital affair. Strzok was transferred to the FBI’s human resources office — an obvious demotion — in July.

The Post reported that Strzok and Page exchanged text messages that “expressed anti-Trump sentiments and other comments that appeared to favor Clinton.”

Word of the messages and the affair were news to Nunes, even though the committee had issued a subpoena that covered information about Strzok’s demotion more than three months ago. The committee’s broadly worded subpoena for information related to the so-called Trump dossier went to the FBI and FOJ on Aug. 24. In follow-up conversations on the scope of the subpoena, committee staff told the FBI and DOJ that it included information on the circumstances of Strzok’s reassignment.

On Oct. 11, Nunes met with deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein. In that meeting, Nunes specifically discussed the committee’s request for information about Strzok.

In an Oct. 31 committee staff meeting with the FBI, bureau officials refused a request for information about Strzok.

On Nov. 20, the committee again requested an interview with Strzok. (Three days earlier, on November 17, Strzok met with the Senate Intelligence Committee.)

On Nov. 29, Nunes again spoke to Rosenstein, and again discussed Strzok.

On Dec. 1, the committee again requested to speak with Strzok.

After each occasion, the FBI and DOJ did nothing. Now, in what appears to be an orchestrated leak, both the Post and Times published the reason for Strzok’s demotion, along with concerns that the revelation might help President Trump. “Among federal law enforcement officials, there is great concern that exposure of the texts they exchanged may be used by the president and his defenders to attack the credibility of the Mueller probe and the FBI more broadly,” the Post reported. The Times reported that “the existence of the text messages is likely to fuel claims by Mr. Trump that he is the target of a witch hunt.”

Well, yes. It will be of concern to Trump’s defenders, and to defenders of fair investigations generally, that such an important figure in both the Clinton and Trump probes privately expressed bias. It will be important for investigators — and the public — to see Strzok’s and Page’s texts to assess the extent of the problem. But in any event, Nunes is extremely unhappy — not only with the revelation of bias but with the FBI’s resistance.

“By hiding from Congress, and from the American people, documented political bias by a key FBI head investigator for both the Russia collusion probe and the Clinton email investigation, the FBI and DOJ engaged in a willful attempt to thwart Congress’ constitutional oversight responsibility,” Nunes said in a statement Saturday afternoon. “This is part of a months-long pattern by the DOJ and FBI of stonewalling and obstructing this committee’s oversight work, particularly oversight of their use of the Steele dossier. At this point, these agencies should be investigating themselves.”

To add insult to injury, at just the moment the leaked stories appeared, the Justice Department out of the blue notified Nunes that it would meet some of the committee’s demands for information that it had been refusing for months. That didn’t make the chairman happy, either.

“The DOJ has now expressed — on a Saturday, just hours after the press reports on Strzok’s dismissal appeared — a sudden willingness to comply with some of the committee’s long-standing demands,” Nunes said in the statement. “This attempted 11th-hour accommodation is neither credible nor believable, and in fact is yet another example of the DOJ’s disingenuousness and obstruction.”

As a result, Nunes said he has instructed committee staff to draw up a contempt of Congress citation for Rosenstein and for FBI Director Christopher Wray. The chairman promised to take action on the citation before the end of December unless the FBI and DOJ meet all the committee’s outstanding demands.

Obviously Nunes is angry that he did not know about the real reasons for Strzok’s demotion. And he is equally angry with the FBI’s and DOJ’s treatment of the committee. Contempt of Congress is a big move for lawmakers to take, especially against an agency controlled by the same party as leaders of the House. But remember, House Speaker Paul Ryan has already said the FBI and DOJ “stonewalled” the House, and he demanded that it comply immediately. That was five weeks ago. Now, after this latest episode, it seems likely that leaders in Congress are becoming increasingly frustrated with what they see as the FBI and DOJ jerking lawmakers around. At some point, they will act.

Time to cut off funding of these swamps. Contempt of congress citations must be issued. FBI Wray and DOJ Rosenstein and Sessions must be called to testify.

Once again, it seems obvious (to me, anyway) that PDT must, at a minimum, issue an EO stating that anyone in the DOJ, and specifically FBI, who does not respond to lawful requests for information from congress and watchdog groups, in a timely manner, will be fired immediately. Sessions should do it but, for whatever reason, he hasn’t and won’t. Rosenstein appears to be compromised and won’t do it either. This should have been done months ago; I don’t understand why Trump hasn’t done it. It’s just ordering his agencies to follow the law.

Not sure about Wray at FBI. This past week, I read that Wray has removed conflicted Andrew McCabe from all of his investigative assignments, although retaining his deputy director title. Supposedly, he’s in some kind of resignation negotiation. This was at the TruePundit website, and the article was based on anonymous FBI sources, so I don’t know how reliable it is. I don’t know anything about TruePundit and I haven’t seen any confirmation of this at any normally-reliable sites. But if it’s true, it’s a good sign about Wray. If it’s true.

Also, at the State Department, Tillerson sent an email to its employees on October 17, requiring all unanswered FOIA requests, some going back 10 years (!!), to be cleared up by the end of this year. He has transferred and assigned hundreds to get this job done. This was reported in Politico, so it’s somewhat reliable, I guess. If true, it’s also a good sign about Tillerson, on this issue.

Good one, Sarah!https://twitter.com/SavingAmerica4U/status/936727113238970370
“Where is Pres Trump hiding his income tax returns?
Sanders replied: “They are underneath Obama’s college records, his passport application, his immigration status as a student, his funding sources to pay for college, his college records, and his Selective Service registration.”

They say: we deeply regret and apologize for the error we made yesterday?

The statement is not original. In fact it was plagerized. Those words were first uttered by Brian Ross’s mother when she took a look at the little tyke.

Moreover, the statement is ambiguous. Are they referring to the “error” that plunged the market over 300 points, or was it perhaps some other error that we have not heard about yet. Clearly, yesterday was a long day, and their productivity in producing lies and misstatements is so high that it is not unlikely that there were other “errors” they committed in their heat seeking missile attempt to shoot President Trump and along with him the country down in flames. So we will just have to wait and see what other errors emerge from the vast wasteland that is now big media.

They go on to say that the fiction piece Lyn’n Brian wrote was not vetted through their (rigorous, exhaustive, and infallible) editorial standards process.

Two reactions:

First, the statement assumes that there are such standards when history has shown there are not, therefore the evidentiary objection would have to be: Objection your honor. Assumes facts that are not in evidence. (Sustained)

But assuming arguendo that there are editorial standards, then the question becomes what exactly are those standards? If you look back at the cocophany of lies spilling out of their mouth these past two years, the (in)famous statement by Hillary: what difference does it make? comes to mind.

And finally, the whopper: it is vital that we get the story right and retain the trust we have built up with our audience–followed by some blather about core principles.

First, they do not mean principles. They mean principal that being the principal they have built over the years in their bank account regaling the fools who tune them in. But they had better be careful with that one, based on how they plunged the stock market yesterday. Not much principle or principal in that.

Second, when the refer to the trust they have built up with their audience over the years, the statement is meaningless unless it can be QUANTIFIED. Absent that it is nothing more than self serving opinion. So lets go to the record as Casey Stengle used to say. And when we do that, we find that the trust ABC has built with its audience over the years is just about equal to the trust the public has in congress, which is around 12% last time I looked, and that was before the sexual harrassment allegation hit the transom. It is worth pointing out that ABC has been touched by that scandal as well, ergo 12% may be a high water mark. In sum, it is bad form, and hypocracy to invoke a trust factor when by any objective measure it does not exist.

Sanders is a great press secretary but there is no official record of her ever saying that quote at a press conference or on social media. It’s a fake quote that was originally attributed to Sean Spicer and now to Sanders. The facts in the quote are mostly true, as Obama has sealed many of his personal records from his college years, but the quote itself has not been confirmed by anyone officially.

First of all, the victim was white and the killer was brown. To the liberal mind this is how it should be, to atone for centuries of discrimination–starting with Cortez vs the Aztecs, while forgetting the fact the Aztecs were no choir boys, and were much admired for their human sacrifices.

Second, the prosecution should have added a charge to the indictment, based on the first story the killer told, namely, that the reason he wanted to have the gun was so he could shoot at Sea Lions. If the San Francisco Jury and Judge Yellow Fang had heard that, then their green weenie would have shown, and they would have convicted him of murder in the first degree, genocide, and high crimes against marine mammals punishable by being drawn, quartered and fed to the sharks that infest the waters around Alcatraz.

Yes, I agree that regardless of who actually wrote that quote, it is a perfect reply to the question of where Trump’s tax returns are located. Obama had to have a good reason for going through the trouble and expense of sealing his own financial and academic records from college and law school.

Rosenstein is dirty as hell.
————
U.S. House Republicans are drafting a contempt of Congress resolution against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray, claiming stonewalling in producing material related to the Russia-Trump probes and other matters.

Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes and other committee Republicans, after considering such action for several weeks, decided to move after media including the New York Times reported Saturday on why a top FBI official assigned to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of Russia-Trump election collusion had been removed from the investigation.

Republicans, including the president, pointed to the reports as evidence that the entire probe into Russian meddling has been politically motivated.

“Now it all starts to make sense,” Trump said on Twitter Sunday.

In his statement Saturday, Nunes pointed to the reports that the official, Peter Strzok, was removed after allegedly having exchanged anti-Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton text messages with his mistress, who was an FBI lawyer working for Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe.

Another Trump tweet referred to the agent as “tainted (no, very dishonest?).” The president added that the FBI’s reputation “is in Tatters – worst in History!” In a busy morning of notes to his 44 million followers, Trump earlier said that “I never asked” former FBI Director James Comey “to stop investigating Flynn. Just more Fake News covering another Comey lie!”

Agent’s Dismissal

Until now, Nunes said, the FBI and Department of Justice have failed to sufficiently comply with an Aug. 24 committee subpoena — including by refusing repeated demands “for an explanation of Peter Strzok’s dismissal from the Mueller probe.”

“In light of today’s press reports, we now know why Strzok was dismissed, why the FBI and DOJ refused to provide us this explanation, and at least one reason why they previously refused to make Deputy Director McCabe available to the Committee for an interview,” Nunes said.

“By hiding from Congress, and from the American people, documented political bias by a key FBI head investigator for both the Russia collusion probe and the Clinton email investigation, the FBI and DOJ engaged in a willful attempt to thwart Congress’ constitutional oversight responsibility,” he said.

‘Fully Met’

Nunes, in the statement, said the committee will move on a resolution by the end of the month unless it demands are “fully met” by the close of business Dec. 4.

He cited “a months-long pattern by the DOJ and FBI of stonewalling and obstructing this Committee’s oversight work,” including also withholding subpoenaed information about their use of an opposition research dossier that targeted Trump in the 2016 election.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions would not be a target of any contempt action by the committee, Nunes has said, because he recused himself from any investigation into charges that Russia meddled in the election.

Justice Department spokeswoman Sara Isgur Flores said in an email that “we disagree with the chairman’s characterization and will continue to work with congressional committees to provide the information they request consistent with our national security responsibilities.”

Documents and Briefings

The department has already provided members of House leadership and the Intelligence Committee with “several hundred pages of classified documents” and multiple briefings — including whether any FBI payments were made related to the dossier — and has cleared witnesses including McCabe and Strzok to testify, she said.

The House committee’s top Democrat, Representative Adam Schiff of California, responded in a statement that the Department of Justice inspector general is “properly investigating the handling of the investigation, including the current allegation of bias” by Strzok.

“I am concerned, however, that our chairman is willing to use the subpoena and contempt power of the House, not to determine how the Russians interfered in our election or whether the president obstructed Justice, but only to distract from the core of our investigation,” Schiff said.

Salacious Allegations

The dossier, which included salacious allegations about Trump, was paid for in part by the Democratic National Committee and Clinton through a law firm. Nunes and other committee Republicans — backed by Speaker Paul Ryan — say they want to investigate whether the Justice Department and FBI may have improperly relied on the dossier to kick-start federal surveillance that caught up Trump associates, without independently confirming the information they used to justify such spying.

“The DOJ has now expressed — on a Saturday, just hours after the press reports on Strzok’s dismissal appeared — sudden willingness to comply with some of the Committee’s long-standing demands,” Nunes said. “This attempted 11th-hour accommodation is neither credible nor believable, and in fact is yet another example of the DOJ’s disingenuousness and obstruction.”

Those agencies “should be investigating themselves,” he said.

Comity Strained

If Nunes and Republicans do follow through with the contempt action, it would be a latest blow against bipartisanship on a committee that had until recently been one of the last bastions of comity in a polarized House. Democrats complain Republicans are increasingly shifting attention and limited resources in the Russian investigation away from a main focus of election interference and potential Trump campaign collusion.

The committee’s infighting has stepped up since October, coinciding with Democratic complaints that Nunes has returned to a more active capacity for Republicans in the committee’s Russia investigation.

Nunes said April 6 he was stepping back amid criticism of his handling of classified material, reportedly obtained from White House officials, that he said showed officials of former President Barack Obama’s administration “unmasked” the identities of people close to Trump who were mentioned in legal surveillance of foreign individuals.

Representative Michael Conaway of Texas officially has taken over the Republican reins from Nunes on the investigation. But Nunes’s statement Saturday is another signal he’s returned to a leading role.

Hillary’s blunders as SOS are legion, but for the modern era, this one ranks at or near the top because it kills any incentive our enemies might have to abandon their nuclear weapons programs, capped by her mawkish clip and that obscene laugh we came we saw he died. What she should have added and we hoisted our anti proliferation position on our own petard:
—————-
For America’s post-Cold War enemies, the lesson is clear:

Give up your WMD, and you wind up like Gadhafi and Saddam Hussein. Build nuclear weapons that can threaten Americans, and you get respect.

Kim Jong Un would be a fool to give up his missiles and nukes, and while the man is many things, a fool is not one of them.

We are nearing a point where the choice is between a war with North Korea in which thousands would die, or confirming that the U.S. is not willing to put its homeland at risk to keep Kim from keeping what he already has — nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them.

This is what happens when foreign policy abdicate any sense of strategy and focused on nothing more than for short term political gain, which was of course the imprimatur of the Obama administration writ large. Not surprisingly, those chickens have now come home to roost, and we are faced with strategic impasse. And that fucking big media, and the deep state were in it with the dims up to their proverbial necks. The United States has more enemies abroad than at any time in history, which are the wages of Obama’s sins. But more dangerous than any of them is the enemy from within, which colluded with Obama to bring down this country.

One of my hiring mistakes years ago was a man who came from the largest LTL carrier in the trucking industry, Consolidated Freight, which in its glory days also owned the largest truck manufacturer Freightliner in the industry. Their labor relations people were never willing to fight the good fight against the union, and eventually they went out of business. This subordinate told me that his boss at Consolidate Freight told him emphatically, your job is to give the company away to the Teamsters as slowly as possible. That could just as easily describe the mission of our State Department, and now we begin to suspect the FBI as well.

The more the FBI wanders into the realm of politics in support of the democrat party, big data etc. the less capable they are of defending this nation from enemies foreign and domestic, and like a bad cop they become indistinguishable from the criminals they are pursuing.

That is why the work Nunez is doing is so damned important to this country. At the same time, unable to prove collusion with Russia, Mooler has now turned to pursuing his second theory, which is obstruction of justice. President Trump would be well serrved to hire the best criminal defense team in the country to thwart Moolers perversion of our justice system for crass, nation destroying partisan ends. Mooler is Nixonian in the worst sense of the term, and bears a striking resemblance to Freddie Krueger, in my humble opinion.

Lest we forget, the middle east strategy championed by Barack Hussein Obama was to marginalize Israel, empower Iran, and to turn Egypt over to the Muslim Brotherhood, a known terrorist organization. That debacle was second only to W’s decision to invade, occupy and occupy Iraq, and the graveyard of empire Afghanistan which is proving to be the longest war in our history. Two of the great military thinkers of the twentieth century, Liddell Hart, and JBL Fuller (a general at 26 years of age) attributed the rise of England and its eclipse of rival France to its concentration on sea power, and avoidance of wars on the continent. Obama and Bush taken together have violated both tenets of successful strategy, and the results are a foregone conclusion. The final thing I will add is that the insanity of overthrowing Gadafi was not Hillary’s decision alone. It is shared with that over educated idiot Samantha Power, one of the stupidest Harvard educated fools to rise to power in two centuries.

Admin: there has always been two prongs to the Mooler investigation: i) collusion with Russia, and ii) obstruction of justice.

Now that the collusion with Russia has turned out to be a dry hole, best evidenced by the fact that the cooperating witness, Flynn did not plead guilty to that, given Feinsteins remark yesterday, it is clear to me that Mueller is now aiming at the obstruction of justice theory, and even though the president has the power to shut down a DOJ investigation if he has grounds to do so, the goal is to enter a finding to that effect, to get control of congress in 2018, and to commence an impeachment proceeding. I suggested this last night, without venturing into the detail. And if the goal from the beginning has been political as opposed to legal then this would also explain why he selected democratic operatives like Weisman inter alia to man the ramparts of this investigation, with no republicans on his staff. And believe you me, big media, Google, Facebook, and Yahoo are in part of this conspiracy to overturn an election which represents a challenge to their power. The danger here lies in tweets relating to this investigation, and we now learn that others, specifically Trump lawyers are drafting some of those tweets under his name and if that is true they are guilty of malpractice. Andy McCarthy just published an article which comports with some of this analysis, and it is attached below. The other thing that is clear to me is that Mooler is both a political hack, and a traitor to this country based on the role he, Rosenstein and Weisman played in the coverup of the Uranium One Scandal. That investigation cannot be handled either by Congress, or by a conflicted Justice Department. As Greg Jarrett, among others, have consistently maintained, Mooler must himself be the target of an independent special counsel investigation, to bring down the house of cards on the entire lot of them. Hopefully, when the FBI informant testifies before Congress, it will set those wheels in motion, placing Moooler and his merry band of men where they belong–Leavenworth. Here is a portion of Andy’s analysis, which is sound as it alway is . . ..
______________
So, It’s an Impeachment Case Assuming I am correct about Mueller’s theory, its fatal flaw as a vehicle for prosecution is the same as it has always been: As president, Trump had incontestable power to exercise prosecutorial discretion and to fire the FBI director. Because of more ill-advised tweeting this weekend, there is now a suggestion that when Trump fired Flynn in February — and when he allegedly asked Comey to let the Flynn investigation go — he knew that Flynn had lied to the FBI. There are factual disputes here: The tweet was apparently written by a Trump lawyer, not Trump himself; Trump apparently denies knowing Flynn had lied to the FBI (just that he had lied to Vice President Pence); and Trump continues to deny former FBI director James Comey’s sworn testimony that Trump pressured him to drop the Flynn investigation. For argument’s sake, let’s assume the worst: Trump knew Flynn had lied to the FBI (i.e., that Flynn had committed at least one felony), and he leaned on Comey to close the FBI’s probe. Even with those assumptions, there is still no obstruction case. The FBI and the Justice Department are not a separate branch of government; they are subordinates of the president delegated to exercise his power, not their own. Even on Comey’s account, Trump did not order him to shut down the Flynn investigation, even though he could have. Trump could have ordered an end of the Russia counterintelligence investigation, but he did not. He could have pardoned Flynn, which would effectively have ended the FBI’s criminal investigation — beyond any possibility of review. We can stipulate that these would have been sleazy things to do, potentially damaging to national security, and still grasp that the president had the undeniable power to do them. The president had undeniable power to fire the FBI director. You can argue that his reason was corrupt, but the truth is that he didn’t need a reason at all. Similarly, the president had undeniable power to fire the FBI director. You can argue that his reason was corrupt, but the truth is that he didn’t need a reason at all — he could have done it because it was Tuesday and he felt like firing someone; he could have done it because he figured that the Justice Department’s criticism of Comey’s handling of the Clinton e-mails investigation gave him the political cover he needed to dispense with a subordinate he found nettlesome. The point is that even if the president hoped that cashiering Comey would derail an investigation he was addled by, it was wholly in Trump’s discretion to fire the director. Moreover, firing the director did not derail the Russia investigation; it has proceeded apace under the director whom Trump appointed to replace Comey. The president may not be prosecuted in a criminal judicial proceeding for exercising his discretion, however objectionably, in executive matters over which the courts have no power of review. If Mueller tried to indict him, Trump would have unfettered discretion to fire Mueller and to direct the Justice Department to drop the case. You may not like that, but that’s the way it is. It is not, however, the end of the matter. Any powers can be abused. When executive powers are abused, Congress retains the constitutional authority to impeach and remove the president. Obstruction of an FBI investigation may not be realistically prosecutable in court, but there is congressional precedent — in the Nixon and Clinton situations — for obstruction to be a “high crime and misdemeanor” triggering impeachment. Undoubtedly, abuse of the pardon power would also be an impeachable offense, even though it is not reviewable by the courts. I continue to believe that this is the real danger for President Trump: A report by the special counsel, either through the grand jury or some other vehicle, concluding (a) that the president had obstructed the FBI’s investigation of Flynn and of Trump-campaign collusion with Russia, and (b) recommending that the matter be referred to Congress for consideration of next steps, potentially including impeachment and removal.

Matt Drudge has weighed in on this issue, namely that the abuse of process by the corrupt band of brothers–Mooler, Rosenstein, Weissman, Comey, whilst the moon faced Sessions sits there like a cheshire cat in an oblivious state of semi divine remove, is facilitated by a grand jury vehicle convened in Washington DC which went 91% against President Trump in the 2016 election. It is madness to assume that a fair decision will emanate from a hot house such as that.

“Robert Mueller may not realize it, but the conclusion of his investigation, whatever it is, will never be accepted by a huge percentage of the public. As the French say, Mentir est honteux. Lying is shameful. Mike Flynn may have lied, but so, undoubtedly, has the FBI, multiple times, more than Flynn could ever dream of doing or be capable of doing. And they’re the ones we’re supposed to trust in the end.”

Former FBI Director Robert Mueller, the special counsel probing Russian interference in the 2016 election, departs Capitol Hill following a closed-door meeting June 21, 2017. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
What’re we supposed to think when it’s revealed the man running the Hillary Clinton email server investigation (Peter Strzok) was a married Hillary supporter conducting an adulterous affair with a government lawyer, while dissing Donald Trump in his clandestine billet-doux text messages?

(Was he auditioning for Harvey Weinstein’s next movie, assuming Weinstein is ever allowed to make a movie again or even would make one that in any way besmirched his good friend Hillary?)

As an FBI agent, Strzok’s use of text messaging for such an enterprise was nothing short of moronic in this digital age, but nevertheless he was not fired but simply and quietly sent to FBI “Siberia” last summer, his activities only miraculously coming to public attention last week.

Why the secrecy? Many reasons, probably yet to be determined, but it comes down to this: the FBI, like the Mafia, practices omertà.

Nunes Draws Up Contempt Citations After FBI Stonewall on Russia Investigator Demoted for Anti-Trump Texts
They have a code of silence as Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch, who spends his life trying to pry information from our supposedly premier law enforcement agency, can tell you. Ditto, now, the House Intelligence Committee, whose chairman Devin Nunes, as Byron York reports for the Washington Examiner, is apoplectic.
Word of the messages and the affair were news to Nunes, even though the committee had issued a subpoena that covered information about Strzok’s demotion more than three months ago. The committee’s broadly worded subpoena for information related to the so-called Trump dossier went to the FBI and DOJ on Aug. 24. In follow-up conversations on the scope of the subpoena, committee staff told the FBI and DOJ that it included information on the circumstances of Strzok’s reassignment.
On Oct. 11, Nunes met with deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein. In that meeting, Nunes specifically discussed the committee’s request for information about Strzok.

In an Oct. 31 committee staff meeting with the FBI, bureau officials refused a request for information about Strzok.

On Nov. 20, the committee again requested an interview with Strzok. (Three days earlier, on November 17, Strzok met with the Senate Intelligence Committee.)

On Nov. 29, Nunes again spoke to Rosenstein, and again discussed Strzok.

On Dec. 1, the committee again requested to speak with Strzok.

Obviously nothing has been forthcoming until now. But speaking of FBI stonewalling, there’s this new revelation from Fitton, concerning the “happenstance” meeting between Bill Clinton and then AG Loretta Lynch at the Phoenix airport. The “accidental” encounter supposedly resulted in some chit-chat about grandchildren, but only a few days later then FBI director Comey announced he wouldn’t recommend prosecution of Hillary Clinton:

Because of the revelation in our other lawsuit, the FBI – without our knowledge—”reopened” our [July 7, 2016] FOIA request. The agency supposedly found about 30 pages of information, which it needed six weeks to review. The FBI finally gave them to us late Thursday.
Now we know why the FBI played shell games. The documents show that FBI officials were concerned solely about the leaking of details of the tarmac meeting. None of the documents show top agency officials cared one whit about the propriety of the meeting itself, but only about who blew the whistle on the covert tête-à-tête.

In one email, an FBI official writes “we need to find that guy.” And in another we learn that the Phoenix FBI office was contacted “in an attempt to stem any further damage.” An FBI official working on Lynch’s security detail even goes so far as to suggest non-disclosure agreements to keep the full facts from coming forth.

No wonder the FBI didn’t turn these documents over until we caught it red-handed, hiding and lying about them.

Simply put, the FBI appears to be fully complicit in a cover-up that attempted to influence a presidential election for a favored candidate – Hillary Clinton. And the truth was trampled on a Phoenix tarmac.

Sense a pattern here, Watson?

The FBI seems suddenly concerned with leakers when it affects them. Well, that’s only a part of the story — but a significant part. Like most bureaucratic organizations, whether in law enforcement or not, as they grow self-preservation increasingly becomes the dominant motivation. In the case of the FBI, it’s self-preservation leavened with a significant dollop of political bias, conscious and unconscious.

In the case of Strzok, the bias was clearly a bit too conscious for his own good, but who could doubt, given the dramatis personae of Mueller’s investigation, that many of his cohorts share the same views but have the horse sense to leave them out of their text messages.? (Apropos Strzok, it’s interesting he wasn’t fired. Was it because they feared he would go rogue?)

Lock Her Up! Former Dem. Rep. Corrine Brown Sentenced to 5 Years in Prison for Stealing From Needy Children
In a series of heavily criticized tweets (aren’t they always) Trump is asserting that the FBI’s reputation is in tatters. Of course, he’s right. This isn’t justice as it’s supposed to be, not even faintly. It’s Kafka meets Orwell in the Deep State.

Robert Mueller may not realize it, but the conclusion of his investigation, whatever it is, will never be accepted by a huge percentage of the public. As the French say, Mentir est honteux. Lying is shameful. Mike Flynn may have lied, but so, undoubtedly, has the FBI, multiple times, more than Flynn could ever dream of doing or be capable of doing. And they’re the ones we’re supposed to trust in the end.

Corey Booker turned his back on Israel and is looking to be the next POTUS or VP imho. He had to show his credibility by supporting the Iran deal, coming out against recognizing Jerusalem as capital of Israel, and now calling for Trump’s resignation. I am very concernend should the dems win back one or both houses.
Also, if Moore wins, and if the allegations cause him to resign who picks the senator? Truthfully, trump was correct about supporting the other dude as this would have been an easy win. Now we have a bad situation either way. He loses we get a dem in senate and he wins and we have the dems running somewhat effectively against someone who the GOP elected with very serious allegations against him.